Charles Darwin
University
Common Units Committee
Meeting 2/2012 of the Common Units Committee will be held on Thursday November 26th, 11-1pm
in the Community Room, Building Orange 12.1
AGENDA
Item
Attachments
1. Welcome and apologies
2. Minutes Meeting 1, 2012
A
3. TOR’s Common Unit Committee
4.
Standing Items
4.1 Funding/Staffing Matters (NR)
4.2 Academic Consultant Report (NR)
B
4.2 CUC100 Matters (TN)
C
4.3 CUC106 Matters (MT)
D
4.4 CUC107 Matters (JH)
4.5 Library Information Skills (BC)
5. “Sustainability” in Common Units
E
6. Retention & Success Project 2012
F
7. Formalising Common Unit Program aims and objectives
8. Other Business
COMMON UNIT PROGRAM, SCHOOL OF ACADEMCI LANGUAGE AND LEARNING
T. +61 8 8946 xxx | F. +61 8 8946 xxxx | M. 0000 000 000 | E. firstname.lastname@cdu.edu.au
Casuarina Campus
Attachment A
Charles Darwin University
Common Units Management Group Minutes
Meeting 1/2012: 1pm, Thursday 30th May, Community Room,
Building Orange 12.1.
Present: Chair: Martin Carroll (MC), Nicola Rolls (NR), Jennifer Silburn (JS), Greg Williams
(GW), Larissa Pickalla (LP), Bernie Royal (BR) on behalf of Barbara Coat (BC), Jaimee
Hamilton (JH), Micah Thorbjornsen (MT), Sharon Bridgeman (SB).
Apologies: Giselle Byrnes, Sue Carthew, Elizabeth Thynne, Carol Thorogood, Bill Wade,
Trent Newman
Item
Minutes
1.
Welcome from the Chair. The chair opened the meeting, formally welcomed
committee members and accepted apologies.
2.
Minutes of Meeting 02-2011 held Thursday 8th October 2011. Members of
the committee confirmed the minutes of meeting 2-2011 as a true and accurate
record. No matters arising from the minutes were noted.
3.
Terms of reference Common Units Committee
Action Items
MC confirmed that the Common Units Committee now reports to the Learning
and Teaching committee. This now means that the CU committee is formally
locked into the governance structures of the university. The Common Units
Committee terms of reference (TOR) were tabled at a recent Learning and
Teaching Committee meeting. The following changes to the TOR’s were
requested:
Point 3 to be amended to read:
3. Oversee the allocation of teaching responsibilities for the common units;
Point 5 to be amended to read:
5. Encourage wide inter-faculty collaboration and participation in the
development and teaching of the common units;
Membership
The following corrections were noted:
1. Pro Vice-Chancellor – Academic, Martin Carroll
11. Coordinator, Liaison and Academic Support, Barbara Coat
Added at 13 and 14.
2
Professor Giselle Byrnes, Pro Vice-Chancellor Faculty of Law, Education,
Business & Arts and Professor Sue Carthew, Pro Vice Chancellor, Faculty of
Engineering, Health, Science and Environment. The Pro Vice Chancellors have
been added ex officio with the assumption being that they would typically not
attend committee meetings. However it is felt that this is a good way of raising
the profile of the common units at executive level.
JS pointed out that 5 & 6 are known as Associate Dean Teaching and Learning.
MC pointed out that the TOR approved by Learning and Teaching Committee
stipulates the use of the same nomenclature namely; Learning and Teaching,
which gives prominence to the student and their learning.
4.
Standing items
4.1
Funding/Staffing matters:
MC to
discuss
nomenclature
with Faculty
Learning and
Teaching
committees.
ALTC award money
NR confirmed that there is still prize money available from the ALTC award.
Each unit team has been allocated $4K of the total ($25K) and a component
went to buying the team IPads to experiment with as a potential new teaching
and e-Learning studio technology. NR confirmed that the team are welcome to
put ideas, initiatives, etc in writing (email) to the Theme Leader and JS as the
money is sitting in the school account.
MC advised that the university will not place constraints on what this money
needs to be spent on but it must be spent this year.
Facilitation Funding
NR to discuss
the agreed
upon lines of
facilitation
spending
MC confirmed that once the mid-year budget process has been finalised the next with the
individual
round of facilitation funding will be announced.
teams.
Casual budget
NR confirmed that some of this funding has been spent on buy out time for
CUC107 marking for unit development and some for developing online
technologies for CUC100. There is about $20K left taking into account some
money to be used for PD for a consultant.
NR advised that the casual budget is quite tight at present. Some money has
been recovered from the delivery of CUC100 to Essington School. NR reminded
the coordinators of the need to be as careful as possible with the appointment of
casual staff and to continue to ask staff to cover at least 3 groups to reduce the
amount of money being spent at the higher casual rate.
MC queried why the CU team was so reliant on the appointment of casual staff
and whether this was advisable strategically. The strategic recruitment review
committee is now turning its attention to the recruitment of casual staff.
NR pointed out that ideally some of the casual staff used in the common units
would be given permanent positions. However, the Faculty Executive Officer
calculated that if the team were to convert the casual budget of $300K into
permanent positions that this would in no way be sufficient to cover the
NR to work
with
coordinators
to ensure
spend on
casual staff
does not
exceed this
year’s budget
3
requirements. Furthermore, NR pointed out that there are only a very limited
number of permanent staff available (predominantly from SALL, ACIKE and the
School of Engineering and IT) around the campus who are willing to teach on the
program.
JS confirmed that the team has tried consistently over a long period of time to
engage other permanent staff members to teach in the program but have had
very little interest. One of the reasons for this is that it is very demanding.
In addition, NR advised that the EFTSL staff from other areas earn is minimal
and therefore the incentive is low. In some instances where the team have
managed to get staff from others areas to teach on the program there has been
a need to cover their workload part way through the semester.
JH advised that permanent staff are often not motivated and reluctant to put in
the required effort.
JS added that a memo had been sent to the former Chair of the Common Units,
Charles Webb some time ago outlining the need to employ permanent staff to
teach in the common units to ensure quality teaching, however no further
progress has been made on this matter.
NR to add
enrolment
MC requested that unit enrolment trend (spanning back a few offerings) be
trend as
added to the agenda as a standing item. This will allow the committee to see
standing item
what has been happening over time. NR confirmed that this is currently done at in her report
a reporting level for each unit but agreed that a comparative at program level is a which should
good idea.
be sent to the
committee
MC queried how casual staff are incorporated into quality assurance processes
prior to next
such as PDRS and pointed out that a reliance on casual staff is one of the risk
meeting
indicators that TEQSA will examine.
NR advised that there are clear guidelines developed for casual staff in terms of
what they are expected to do as part of their teaching and these are distributed
with their contracts which they are required to sign. In addition, staff are paid an
extra rate for participating in moderation and next semester staff will be flown up
to participate in a PD session about teaching and assessment inCUC107.
Darwin based staff are required to attend a PD session regarding general
common unit teaching. At present there is no PDRS option. Students do relay
comments regarding staff through the SELTS which provides some feedback.
JH also pointed out that in addition to moderation, coordinators also check
casual staff work at random to ensure that quality feedback and marking is
maintained as well as sending out sample marking sheets to model best
practice.
MC pointed out that if a casual staff member is being continually reemployed the
team might want to think about introducing a level of formality in terms of a
review of their performance, so that it does not appear to be an area of potential
risk.
MC queried whether casuals are undertaking the moderation of other casual
tutor’s assessment?
NR confirmed that all teaching staff receives three samples of a particular
4
assessment item which they return with their grading and justification comments.
The Theme leader and/or coordinators then lead the moderation meeting and
ensure the teaching team are in agreement about the marking strategy.
4.6
Academic Consultant report
NR congratulated all of the coordinators on what has been an exciting semester
for different reasons, high numbers in CUC100, innovations in CUC106 and a
shift to a new unit in CUC107.
NR confirmed that Batchelor Institute has been on board this semester with
CUC100 this semester and they have had a constructive collaboration,
examined the curriculum together and implemented one/two changes.
4.2
CUC100 report
NR advised that things have gone well this semester. There were 1095 students
in total this semester and there were 1087 last semester. Trent Newman was
appointed as lecturer/coordinator CUC100 began work toward the end of the
Semester 1.
NR reported that the internal student withdrawals are down to 19% from 24%
last semester (S.2 2011) and commented that working in the E-learning studios
becomes more fruitful each semester. After census, there were 235 internal
students and 554 externals. 19% withdrawals for internals and 46% for
externals. In Semester 1 the withdrawals were 50% and it is likely that a high
proportion of these are students who decide that they are unable to continue to
study full time and CUC100 is an easy unit to drop to lessen their study load.
They then study the unit in the following semester.
In addition, in a survey deployed last semester a number of students indicated
that their withdrawal from CUC100 was also part of a whole course withdrawal.
BR queried whether there is a system in place to ensure that students do reenrol
in the unit the following semester.
NR confirmed that at present there is not a system in place, however there may
be a way of doing this. Further, this will be examined to some extent in the next
phase of the retention study.
NR also pointed out that there were very high SELT results (above 6.5 against
every question) from the last two semesters.
MC pointed out that the withdrawal rate is alarming, and would like to compare
the figures with withdrawal rates more generally across the university.
NR pointed out that the overall withdrawal rate for the unit was 38% which is
much closer to the university’s overall withdrawal rate.
The committee agreed that a clear understanding of the reasons for withdrawal
is needed.
NR to track the
correlation
between
5
JH advised that prior to census students were contacted and it was suggested
that if their study load was proving to be too heavy that they consider
withdrawing from the unit rather than failing and incurring substantial cost.
NR confirmed that this is something the team undertake as part of their pastoral
care of students, helping them to understand that they do not need to study full
time and if they are working full time then it is quite likely that they will be unable
to cope. This needs to be taken into account when seeking to interpret high
numbers of student withdrawals as well as the large variety of personal forces
that affect students’ attrition.
CUC100
withdrawal,
reduction to
part-time load
and
reenrolment in
followings
semester
JS suggested that an online orientation for students (presented by students)
could be implemented where these kinds of issues as well as the university’s
recommendations in terms of time management/study load etc can be made
explicit.
Deb Farrelly (DF) is organising an online orientation for external students using
funding from student amenities fees. This project is being organised through
Marketing and Planning and was headed up by Kym McInerney. Ideally the
project will be completed by semester 2, 2012 or a pilot at least. MC pointed out
that the common units are one of the first experiences students have at CDU
and as such, requested that JS (in her capacity as the CU committee’s link to the
student amenities project) raise the inclusion of the CU committee as well as the
Learnline team and the library at the next student amenities committee meeting.
NR pointed out that the common units are offered every semester and it is
therefore easier for students to withdraw and pick them up later, whereas with
other units there is a need to follow a specific sequence.
JH suggested the possibility of capping numbers each semester and this would
have the effect of both reducing the numbers of casual staff each semester and
even out the student numbers across semesters.
JS to raise
the inclusion
of the CU
committee as
well as the
Learnline
team and the
library at the
next student
amenities
committee
meeting.
MC advised that this is unlikely to happen although he conceded that he could
see why this would be useful.
JS commented that there is a need to do some research into the students who
are withdrawing. Very often students indicate that it is for personal or financial
reasons. NR advised that this is supported via the retention report.
NR concluded that there are also a large number of credit transfers students
included in these figures who are required to enrol in the unit in the first instance.
Post enrolment CT applications should be referred to MC as he is preparing the
new advanced standing policy which includes CT and RPL.
MC further queries who these late CT students are and why procedurally we
make students enrol in the unit first and apply for CT later. NR explains students
often do this retrospectively, i.e. they often enrol and then review the unit
6
information and realise that they have covered the skills in another course. In
instances where universities have compulsory academic skills units such as this,
AUQA were very keen to emphasise the need to recognise that some students
will already have those skills.
MC queried whether there is any evidence that students are taking the common
units later in their degree and therefore their intent has been watered down?
NR advised that the statistics put together for the retention and success study in
2010 revealed that 80% of students were studying the common units in 1st year,
whereas previously students had been leaving it until later. Most course plans
schedule the common units for the first year, in either first or second semester.
JH commented that in her opinion CUC107 should be taken in the last semester
as an exit unit as the unit covers cultural intelligence and capabilities in the
workplace which is better suited for study in the final year. If students study this
unit in the first year the content may be forgotten.
GW pointed out that the idea is an interesting one however the academic
literacies built into the unit are still needed by students in the first year.
JS commented that the concepts could be introduced in the first year together
with academic literacy and then provide a capstone unit that expands on cultural
intelligence and capabilities and gives workplace skills.
JH has been in negotiations with Rose McEldowney, School of Health Science to
develop two additional units that build upon CUC107. The School of Education
have also expressed an interest in these units.
MC advised that moving CUC107 to the exit year could be done however
increasingly the final years of many of CDU’s courses are filled with core units
and as such it would be hard to create the necessary space.
MC also advised that the university has been discussing the possibility of having
an Indigenous graduate attribute. In addition, the existing graduate attributes
may change and be reduced to two/three in total (to include sustainability and
cultural awareness). If this goes ahead then ideas around capstone units/exit
unit would fit into this.
MC agreed that there is no immediate need for a policy response with regard to
when students undertake the common units.
NR officially welcomed Trent Newman who has been appointed to teach in
CUC100 with the view of him taking over NR’s role as joint Coordinator with
Elizabeth Thynne. NR advised that in terms of formalising the role of coordinator
against the requirements of common unit coordination, components of the CU
coordinator’s role were incorporated into the formal recruitment process
undergone by Trent. Trent comes to CDU with a broad area of experience and
knowledge, not only teaching literacies in diverse settings, curriculum
development, critical literacy, cross cultural communication, conflict management
7
and sustainable development. He is also in the process of complete the Cert IV
in Workplace Training and will also receive appropriate mentoring for our unique
context. In all, Trent is an excellent fit for the common Unit program.
NR highlighted that the committee have yet to agree whether any formal
paperwork should come to the committee upon the appointment of a new
coordinator. Trent was recruited via the formal interview process. In other
instances the relevant school formally proposes that an existing staff member
become a coordinator and in this case it was agreed that the candidate should
submit a short expression of interest (EOI) and that this would be assessed by a
small group. It was decided at the last meeting that for EOI’s a panel would be
convened (membership to be approved by the committee) and the criteria would
be based on the current coordinators role.
NR confirmed that yes this new process would apply to future appointments for
coordination for all of the common units. The idea behind this is to ensure that
the new staff members are a suitable fit, committed to the program and first year
learning.
MC pointed out that VCAG had recently met and discussed the general CDU
recruitment process and it is likely that this will now become a “two up” process
whereby staff are not able to chair recruitment panels for positions that report
directly to them. Rather, the panel must be chaired by the staff member’s
supervisor. It has been designed to ensure that appointments are made with a
strategic view rather than an immediate operational need. The common unit
coordinators roles are of equal strategic importance and MC confirmed therefore
that Jenny should therefore chair the EOI panel as necessary.
4.3
JS (as HOS,
SALL) to chair
all future CU
coordinator
appointment
panels
CUC106 report
MT confirmed that this semester there were 165 internal student enrolments, 31
students discontinued which equates to an 18% withdrawal rate. There were
114 external students, 66 discontinued (57% withdrawal rate) and this equates to
a combined withdrawal rate of 34% which is 1% lower than this semester last
year. The withdrawal rate for external students is slightly higher and MT
confirmed that there is more work to be done in terms of mentoring external
students regarding group work which proves to be difficult.
NR advised that some of the facilitation funding has been allocated to develop
improved external student communication tools in CUC106.
JR commented that in general students are poorly prepared for group work; they
are often just put into groups with the expectation that they will have the requisite
strategies to be able to manage the situation and it is very important to highlight
the issues and strategies that can be used if difficulties arise within the group. In
an external situation the issues are exacerbated.
MT pointed out that, these things are addressed explicitly in CUC106 as effective
group communication is a key objective in the unit. Several sessions are spent
on group work and extensive activities and information are also provided for
8
external students but the difference is in the delivery.
NR suggested that there is potential to utilise collaborate more to try and mimic
some of the conversations that the internal students have.
JS commented that the issue with collaborate is that uptake of sessions is not
high and suggested that perhaps video clips from former CUC106 team
members might be helpful.
NR and MT to
use collaborate
/video clips in
Sem 2 for
sessions on
teamwork
MT reported that at present the unit’s focus is the Engineers without Borders
(EWB) project. This year the project focused on Vietnam and next year East
Timor. Prior to the new location being announced, MT and NR have been
considering the possibility of using a consistent project, one that does not
change every year, but is still under the EWB overarching theme. Therefore for
the last 9 months MT has been in communication with members of the Dili
Institute of Technology (DIT) and EWB about looking to do a focused project
over a number of years. This would additionally provide linkages which could be
valuable around the university in other units/areas. MT is planning to visit East
Timor in the first week of July to meet with members from both organisations.
JS commented that this is an excellent idea; students could go over to East
Timor and see what things are like on the ground.
NR pointed out that the team are looking at opportunities for students to fly to
East Timor and perhaps participate in some volunteer work.
MC advised that he would be meeting with the Prime Minister later that day and
that it would be an opportunity to discuss sponsorship or even perhaps a video
of him talking to the CUC106 students. In addition, CDU does a lot of work with
the National University of East Timor and therefore it might be an opportunity to
develop this in tandem with them thereby allowing their students to be involved.
MT is meeting with Monica Turvey on Monday to discuss this and look at the
scholarships the oil and gas centre are proposing for Timorese students.
MC queried whether this might be a unit that could be delivered at the National
University of East Timor (NUET). The idea that CDU could share the CU
curriculum with them and then have staff and student exchanges may be
attractive to them.
NR and MT pointed out that they have discussed this possibility with a member
of EWB looking at developing the curriculum at DIT. This could also mean East
Timorese staff could come over and undertake casual tutoring and their students
could enrol in the unit.
4.4
MT to contact
MC to set up
meeting with
VC of
University of
East Timor.
CUC107 report
JH reported that 215 external students completed and 139 withdrew. Internally
102 completed and 37 withdrew.
This semester was the first time the newly developed unit has run. Students had
a high level of online interaction this semester. This was the first semester that
external students asked JH to have the Wikis up on time in order that they could
participate (no marks are allocated for this). In addition, in week 4 students were
9
asked to complete a PowerPoint presentation and again a high percentage
completed this task where no marks were allocated.
JH and LP have spent a considerable amount of time consulting with Rose
McEldowney and Carol Thorogood about the unit and they both confirmed that
they are happy with the academic literacy components. The CUC107 team have
also been invited to the School of Education to talk about the unit and their Head
of School, Peter Kell suggested that they might like to run a workshop for staff
about the unit. Linda Ford has also expressed interest in learning about how
Indigenous Knowledges has been embedded in the unit.
JH and LP were called away during the semester and wanted to thank those
who had stepped in to assist including Barbara Coat, Barbara White and
Rebecca England.
JH advised that the team had attempted to set up “start of session drinks”
however this was not well attended by the students. In addition, the end of
semester drinks for all common unit students only had approximately 9 student
attendees.
JH confirmed that only 3 casuals were employed in Semester 1 along with Birut
Zemits and Richard Head from the School of Academic Language and Learning.
The team worked closely with Barbara Coat from the library.
The team noticed that some Indigenous students were failing the first two
assignments as a result of their ITAS tutors providing them with incorrect
information. Therefore, the team are initiating a training day for ITAS tutors and
tutors will not be able to provide tutoring on CUC107 unless they have
completed it. The students concerned were asked to resubmit and received
support from JH, LP and/or other tutors. Carol Thorogood has also expressed
interest in the unit coordinators attending the session.
JS queried whether the team had definitively established whether the Indigenous
students failed as a result of the ITAS tutors support, which would suggest that
students who receive ITAS support are not only being penalised in CUC107 but
in other units as well.
JH confirmed that this was the case.
GW advised that while there is a screening process for ITAS tutors there is no
orientation or training provided.
MS to convey
some general
concerns
about the
preparation of
ITAS tutors to
S Larkin
JH pointed out that the team used Google analytics on the website to determine
the level of mobile device use which equated to 5.05 minutes. JH commented
that the new website is designed for IPad/Android use and approximately 30-35
students chose to use them in class.
MC pointed out that it is important to ensure that the CUC107 website does not
require a reliance on such technologies.
GW pointed out that the website materials have been developed in such a way
that they will be easy to turn into an eBook.
LH reported that 5 internal education students who were studying CUC107 at the
same time as their education units were better prepared in term of academic
10
literacy skills than those students in the class who were not studying CUC107
concurrently.
JH advised that Lynley Walker, Executive Officer, LEBA had expressed some
concern about the fact that the unit code for CUC107 had not been changed in
line with the unit’s development. NR confirmed that this had been discussed at
some length with Sam Thompson, Team Leader - Accreditation and Registration
and it had been decided to leave the code unchanged.
GW acknowledged JH and LP’s hard work this semester.
4.5
Library skills
Bernadette Royal reported that the Collaborate sessions provided for the
CUC100 students went well and were well attended. The team are working on
improving their use of collaborate (the team have enjoyed using it). The internal
face to face sessions also went well. The lesson plan will be tightened for next
semester, as well as working toward the whole team delivering in the same way.
Ideally the team would like to have an hour to present in CUC106, this semester
only ½ hour was scheduled for the “introduction to library research” session.
The team would also like to extend the use of collaborate in CUC106 next
semester.
MC pointed out that if there are time pressures in the CUC106 internal sessions,
internal students could be encouraged to attend the collaborate sessions.
BR confirmed that the team have worked closely with the CUC107 team and that
the face to face sessions worked well. Additional collaborate sessions will be
provided next semester as well as exploring the idea of putting the sessions on
to the library’s YouTube channel.
The liaison team as a whole has seen a considerable increase in enquiries
relating to researching and referencing in the common units this semester and
as such have discussed establishing a knowledge bank which could be
incorporated into the CUC107 wikis or other online sites for students to refer to.
Overall the team have enjoyed being part of the common units this semester and
seeing the progress students have made.
BR/BC to
discuss the
development of
a knowledge
bank with NR
and unit
Coordinators
NR congratulated the team for being so proactive in Semester 1.
MC pointed out that the Learning and Teaching committee has been tasked with
developing policies and procedures around the use of Safe assign and will need
to link in with the library about this. Once developed, the common units will need
to refer to these in sessions about referencing, plagiarism and academic
integrity. MC anticipates that there will be a call for volunteers to work on the
project in the near future.
5.
“Sustainability” in Common Units
MC advised that in the context of the recent review of the strategic plan, VCAG
have decided to give sustainability more prominence. MC would ideally like this
11
to become a graduate attribute. The VC has engaged Elena Bondareva to
facilitate the development of a strategic plan for the university on sustainability, it
will cover research and operational issues and curriculum design. Of concern is
the fact that potentially a CDU student could go through their whole studies and
not touch upon sustainability.
VCAG have requested that the common units tackle sustainability and are open
to the method chosen for doing so but this would not include adding a 4th unit,
particularly given that this would not attract additional EFTSL but rather
redistribute the existing amount.
Embedding sustainability in the common units
NR has taken the initial ideas and talked to some staff members around the
university who have ideas about how such a unit could be developed,
particularly in the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods. One
model is to expand its coverage in CUC106. However as the unit only attracts
up to 300 students per annum its reach may not be sufficiently broad. MC
proposed that sustainability could be used as the content via which CUC100
students learn how to think and write. This would mean that all CDU students
are exposed to sustainability to some extend through all of the common units.
NR advised that the CUC100 team had thought about developing this model a
couple of years ago however the team are mindful that the content cannot take
over the skills and so what NR has made clear to Michael Lawes that the unit
can only deal with sustainability issues in an introductory and general way.
Students will need to apply what they have learnt about sustainability to how it
might manifest in their professional context.
Ideally the revised unit will be rolled out next year. In terms of developing the
model in 2012, it will be taken through the usual common unit review process
where representatives will be referenced from outside the team.
Trent emphasised that this is an opportunity for the common unit team to
highlight between all three units in terms of how they speak to sustainability.
MC pointed out that the new sustainability graduate attribute has a framework to
it, namely:




Global awareness
Systems thinking
Disciplinary alignment
Individual action
This will be circulated shortly and provides a rubric for assessing whether our
units and courses speak to any aspect of the framework.
JS cautioned against the common units becoming a ‘hold all’ for every topic, and
the importance of prioritising.
NR pointed out that a large number of CDU’s students are non-traditional and it
is therefore important to foreground academic literacies.
JS there is some danger that staff privilege content over academic skills as they
Sustainability
to be added to
agenda for
next meeting
12
may not feel confident teaching academic skills
NR will be looking for guest lecturers and confident it will be a fruitful
collaboration.
6.
Formalising Common Unit Program Aims
MC pointed out that a thought paper is needed on this agenda item. Postponed
to an ad hoc meeting.
7.
NR to
convene
special
committee
meeting to
discuss this
agenda item
Promoting Common Units
Agenda item postponed to next meeting. NR confirmed that she had given a
presentation to the Academic Board about the common units and this was well
received. MC thanked NR for giving the presentation at short notice.
8.
Retention & Success project 2012
NR proposed the continuation of the project monitoring of trends and particularly
focusing on the effect of modalities (whether students are off campus, what tools
they are exposed to and how this affects their success).
$5K has been put aside for this project. The committee agreed that Bill should
be commissioned to carry on this project.
9.
PD for CU teaching staff
NR advised that some of the facilitation money will be used toward the
development of a comprehensive model of regular PD for CU teaching staff. PD
for common unit teaching staff was started last year with an introductory session
facilitated by J.S, NR, GW and Barbara White looking at the theme of working in
the eLearning studios but also how to work with diversity at the first year level.
JS confirmed that they will be employing a consultant to develop an additional
component to the existing PD with a focus on enhancing lecturer’s
communication skills in relation to working with students as team teachers.
NR advised that it will be mandatory for all common unit staff to attend this PD
which will be held on the first 2 days of the semester break. Staff will be able to
have their marking bought out where needed. 2 team members from each unit
will be able to attend each session (there are only 12 places available in total).
This PD could potentially be something that all first year lecturers benefit from.
MC requested that NR keep in touch with Deb West about this with a view to the
possibility of rolling this out further.
NR to check in
with team
about PD
attendance.
NR to discuss
PD with Deb
West
Meeting closed at 3pm
13
Attachment B
Theme Leader Report: CU Management Meeting 2 2012
Overview
Semester 2 and the beginning of summer semester have been busy with high enrolments
particularly for CUC107 in both semester 2 and summer. This has had a significant impact on our
casual budget and staff teaching loads. We have also been busy reconvening teams for the end of
year unit reviews; finalising ongoing monitoring research and remaining responsive to student
feedback.
Although because of an increase numbers have put coordinators under considerable pressure, there
have been some excellent additional incentives from common unit coordinators and their teams
including:
 CUC107, a workshop for their casual staff and one for ATSI tutors introducing the unit and
assessments.

CUC106 a trip to Timor (Micha and Trent and EWB team) to gather information for 2013
teaching and further scope the feasibility of Timor as an ongoing context for CUC106
projects

CUC100 supporting external students learning with a comprehensive suite of camtasia live
and recorded sessions to scaffold assessment and particular skills including reading and
note-taking.
Final grades were presented at the SALL examinations meeting and at LEBA Faculty
meeting. An issue with high numbers of plagiarised assignments was raised for CUC107.
Approaches for addressing these problems will be discussed at review meetings and
formalised through the CU Committee.
SELT results, which were excellent in some instances but not consistently across all the
units, will be presented and discussed with individual unit reports.
1. Enrolment trends
There has been an increase in student numbers in common units this year of 723 compared
with last year:
Count 2011
EFTSL
Count 2012
Headcount EFTSL
340.344
2,746 419.563
Increase
Headcount EFTSL
3,469
79.219
Headcount
705
This has had an impact on staff workloads and budget for casual staff despite measures to
reduce casual expenditure by increasing the numbers of students in each external tutorial
group from 30-35.
14
2. Activities Semester 2:
Specific activities through the semester have been:

Increasing our use of online communication tools in all three units.
These were provided for unit introductions, explanations for assignments and drop in
sessions using camtasia have been utilised and received favourable by many students.

Conferences and publications
I attended and presented papers at two conferences related to first year learning matters and
common units in June/July and am currently preparing a paper for one of these:

Tyler W & Rolls N (2012) “Innovation and Performativity in an Australian University
Program: Examining the tensions between the increasing student diversity and push for
online learning and performance related funding at universities”, Seventh International
Basil Bernstein Symposium, 27-30 June, 2012, Aix en Provence, France.

Rolls N & Wignell P (2012) “Unpacking and Repacking Horizontal Knowledge Structures:
Enabling the critical comprehension of first year students in times of diversity”, 39th
International Systemic Functional Linguistics Congress (ISFC39), July 16th – 20th, 2012 at the
University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia.

Liaison with REIL regarding inclusion of sustainability topic in CUC100
A number of meetings have been conducted with REIL staff, Andrew Campbell and
more regularly Mick Lawes and the CUC100 coordinators Elizabeth Thynne and Trent
Newman to explore ways for incorporating the sustainability theme within CUC100.
From these discussions a concept proposal has been developed for presentation at this
meeting.

Two day PD for SALL Coordinators and Theme leader in Effective Communication in
Diverse Classrooms.
This was presented in the mid-semester break by a consultant from Melbourne. The aim of
the workshop was to give participants insights into the important role of communication in
teaching and to highlight how the use of voice, posture and body can shape and influence
that communication. As Jenny Silburn reminded us, “The ability to connect with our
students is paramount; when we combine our reason and passion together with effective
communication skills; we enhance our capacity to connect with each other and our students
in powerful ways”. A follow up debrief from the workshop revealed that while most
participants gain some useful insights from the workshop, participants would have
benefited from more input into what was covered and more opportunities for pre-workshop
teambuilding. These lessons will certainly be taken on board for future PD activities. On the
whole people also valued the opportunity to get to know each other in this different forum.
15

Proposal for funding for Common Unit Monitoring project presented.
Funds have been approved for this 2.5 year project with $75,000 for the first year’s and funds
for the following year pending continued availability of HEPP funds. Details will be provided
at Item 7.

Annual review of individual units
Reviews will be conducted in December (CUC100 and CUC106) and, early February 2013
(CUC107). The teams include:
o
o
o

CUC107 – Jeswyn (Law); Jen Puch-Bowman (Psychology); Steve (History); Barbara
White(IT); Larissa Pickalla (ED); Jaimee (Sociology) & Greg Williams (Indigenous);
Penny Wurm (Environmental Science)
CUC106 – Nicola (Ed/App Linguistics); Micah (Engineering); Barbara Coate
(Library); Penny Wurm (Environmental Science); Dan (Humanitarian); Pascale
(Pharmacy).
CUC100 - Nicola (Ed/ App Linguistics);Mal (Psychology); Greg Shaw (Ed &IT)
Barbara Coates (Library); Bev Turnball (Nursing);Elizabeth Thynee (Ed & Applied
Ling); Danial Kelly (Law/Applied Linguistics)
Common unit description common course rules – The old description was very out of date so
this has been updated in the draft document for the new rules to reflect changes over the last
few years.
3. CUC100 Essington year 11&12
In semester 2 the first cohort graduated from CUC100E4. In general students were able to pick
up the skills and concepts relatively easily, however a lack of maturity and an inability to
appreciate the relevance affected the performances of the students when they stared CUC100 in
year 11. This improved markedly by Year 12 where SALLs CUC100 Essington coordinator
Adelle Barry reported: “It has been a pleasure working with such a polite group of students
who have really matured over the last two years. Unfortunately there were a few students who
failed to submit component of their learning reflection and this affected their final score.
Notably a few students did score extremely high marks and are congratulated for their efforts
and consistent hard work throughout the last twelve months. “
From Semester 2, Essington teachers have picked up all of the delivery on the proviso that they
participate in moderations and curriculum meetings with the CUC100 team. This has proven
logistically difficult because of different terms, however, Trent will be following up for some
retrospective moderation and from next year we will establish a firmer commitment from them
for ore regular liaison.
4. CUC100 BAT
We have developed a very constructive relationship with the Batchelor teaching team
for CUC100. A meeting was facilitated by Trent last week to discuss the high
16
failure/non completion rate of BAT students in CUC100 that reflects course failure non
completion. The principle issues that were identified related to students literacy levels,
and attendance and application, which are limited by the modular approach of two x
two intensive weeks of workshops. Possible solutions raised included:
Short term:

Adapting the essay questions and readings to better fit with their degrees/working
contexts – a more embedded approach.
Longer term:

Investigating the possibility of a CUC100BAT being developed to run over two
semesters (along the lines of the Essington model)

Looking at literacy diagnostic pre entry to the degree
17
Attachment C
CUC100 Academic Literacies
ANNUAL REPORT - December 2012
Elizabeth Thynne and Trent Newman
1. Overview
CUC100 has run very successfully this year both internally and externally. Internally, the classes have been
held in the CDU eLearning studios which provide an excellent venue for dynamic teaching and worthy group
interaction using state of the art technology. Externally, there has been a good response to the weekly emails,
Camtasia recordings, and Collaborate sessions involving both SALL teaching staff and our liaison librarians.
Very pleasing student evaluations were received.
2. Staffing
The CUC100 unit is taught at Casuarina campus internally and as part of Essington College’s program, in
Alice Springs, and as part of the ACIKE and BITE programs, so we have a range of staff involved in various
locations.
Name
CDU Staff/Casual
Faculty
Internal/External
Nicola Rolls
CDU Staff
SALL
Internal
Trent Newman
CDU Staff
SALL
Both modes
Elizabeth Foggo Thynne CDU Staff
SALL
External
Clare McVeity
CDU Staff .4
SALL
Internal
Fran Tolhurst
CDU Staff
SALL
Internal
Jane Zhang
BIT
Education Both modes
Terri Hughes
BIT
ACIKE
Both modes
Richard Head
CDU Staff
SALL
Both modes ASP
Vibeke Foss
Casual
SALL
Internal
Ali Baydoun
Casual
SALL
Internal
Adelle Barry
Casual
SALL
Internal and Essington
Caroline Rannersberger
Casual
SALL
External
Scott Knight
Casual
SALL
External
Stephanie Zhang
Casual
SALL
External
3. Special projects/activities
This year we have had a particular focus on providing external students with as much “human” contact for
learning and support as possible. We have utilised a combination of phone calls, weekly emails, Camtasia
18
recordings and timely Collaborate sessions to keep students informed and on track. Student comments in
SELTS indicate that all of these devices are much appreciated. We have also continued our emphasis on ‘just
in time’ support for our students with extra support for externals via phone and email, support for struggling
internal students via regular ICT drop in sessions, and an extra weekly tutorial scheduled specifically for
those for whom English is not a first language. Both internal and external students have also had access to
SALL’s ALLSP program and to our liaison librarians when extra help with researching and referencing was
needed beyond that provided within the unit structure. We also made a point of reminding students to
withdraw by census date if they felt unable to complete the unit, even with extra time and help.
The CUC100 team have been working this semester in collaboration with staff from RIEL (in particular Mike
Laws) to embed the theme of Sustainability into the unit content in future iterations of the unit. Regular
meetings are being held to discuss the best way to continue with our well-recognised and nationally
awarded pedagogy keeping a balance between relevant yet accessible content along with the embedded
skills inherent in academic literacies. A pilot of the new theme will probably be run in summer semester
2013 for external students, modifying it as necessary to offer to both externals and internals in semester one
2014.
4. Student numbers 2012
Semester
SS
Enrolled Withdrawn* % Withdrawn
223
96
43%
223
96
43%
I
327
55
17%
E
815
265
33%
1142
320
28%
I
132
37
28%
E
465
183
39%
S2 Total
597
220
37%
Grand total
1962
636
32%
E
Ss Total
S1
S1 Total
S2
*NB: The number of withdrawals is consistent with the previous year. While this number may look quite
dramatic, this is a result of our encouraging those who have not accessed Learnline by Week 4 to withdraw
before the census date. Credit transfers and deferrals are also part of the mix. In Semester 2, we had a large
number of internal withdrawals for Credit Transfers for students who had completed the Diploma of
Academic English and TEP.
19
5. Student Evaluations (SELTS) 2012
Questions
Number of respondents
1. The teaching of this unit is
well organised.
2. It is made clear what is
expected of me.
3. I have sufficient access to a
computer for my learning in this
unit.
4. The delivery of this unit is
sufficient for effective learning.
5. The teaching stimulates my
interest in this unit.
6. The unit provides
opportunities for participation
and sharing of ideas.
7.
This unit is well taught.
8. The feedback on my work
is provided promptly.
9. Overall, the assessment of
the unit is fair.
10. I received sufficient
information on how to use
Learnline.
11. The incorporation of
Library resources in Learnline
helps me in my learning.
12. I have sufficient access to
assistance when using
Learnline.
Mean Likert Score
2012 SS
Mean Likert Score
2012 S1
Mean Likert Score
2012 S2
Internal
offering
External
offering
Internal
offering
External
offering
Internal
offering
External
offering
N=0
N=34
N=66
N=180
N=33
N=117
N/A
6.18
6.02
6.33
6.55
6.23
N/A
5.91
5.91
6.23
6.33
6.19
N/A
6.41
6.38
6.51
6.30
6.45
N/A
6.15
5.97
6.24
6.55
6.29
N/A
5.82
5.23
5.92
6.12
5.98
N/A
5.56
6.08
6.01
6.64
6.08
N/A
6.12
5.94
6.19
6.45
6.15
N/A
5.85
5.85
6.43
5.55
6.13
N/A
6.15
6.00
6.27
6.36
6.21
N/A
6.03
6.15
6.05
6.42
6.09
N/A
5.68
5.97
6.11
6.24
6.31
N/A
5.71
5.92
6.05
6.18
6.08
Score Range
Our SELTs scores for 2012 were very pleasing with a steady improvement each semester. Last semester (S2)
the majority of scores were over 6, with only two in the 5 band, 5.55 (relating to marking turnaround for
internal delivery) and 5.98 (relating to “teaching stimulates interest” for external delivery). However, overall
the responses improved over the 3 semesters including: “unit is well taught”, Library resourcing, fair
assessment, and opportunities for sharing ideas. At first analysis we attribute much of this to increased use of
learning technologies.
20
Scores ranged as follows:
Semester
Mode
Lowest
Score
Highest
Score
SS
E
5.68
S1
S2
I
5.23
E
5.92
I
5.55
E
5.98
6.41
6.38
6.51
6.64
6.29
Key issues raised in comments
In line with the scores, the SELTS comments were in general very favourable in regards to the excellent
textbook, very helpful, supportive tutors, and a well-organised unit that will be useful for future studies.
In the “needs improvement” section a few comments were raised including:
 Several requests for greater consistency of layout in Learnline across all of the common units and the
rest of the university;
 A few complaints about the Learnline email system – recurring faults and crashes;
 Several requests for earlier timing for the unit, i.e., prior to commencing other units.
 Internally, turnaround time for marking of assignments was raised and will be addressed by the
coordinators, for we have an established two week turnaround policy that we try hard to adhere to.
One internal student mentioned that streaming those who already had many of the skills could be useful. We
need to determine whether this is an issue for many students and so will conduct a follow up survey of those
internal students in Semester 2 who opted not to attend internal classes. We will also stream students
internally from NES backgrounds in semester one 2013 so a higher group is at first glance not feasible or
necessary; advanced students either are eligible for exemption or encouraged to study externally so they can
move at their own pace. However, we will discuss this further in our review groups and think about ways
classroom activities might be structured even more flexibly to allow for different levels.
Discussion/actions
CUC100 Review/Reference Group team met at the end of 2011 and will meet again in December. The
CUC100 team consider these review meetings to be very valuable given that they provide input and
feedback from such a wide range of people from outside of SALL. The process of reviewing the unit from a
variety of perspectives is considered invaluable, especially for identifying how best to address issues raised
and/or comments made in the SELTS that indicate a need for improvement.
21
Attachment D
ANNUAL REPORT for CUC106, December 2012
Micah Thorbjornsen
1. Overview
CUC106 has gone well this year with no major incidents. CUC106 has continued its fruitful partnership with
Engineers Without Borders (EWB) and for the first time has an internal group selected to represent CDU at
the regional (NT/WA) competition as coordinated by EWB.
2. Staffing
Name
CDU Staff/Casual
Faculty
Internal/External
Micah Thorbjornsen
CDU STAFF
(SEIT) EHSE
INTERNAL
Nicola Rolls
CDU STAFF
(SALL) LEBA
INTERNAL
David Rolfe
CASUAL
INTERNAL
Sangeeta Bishnoi
CASUAL
INTERNAL
Monishka Rita
CASUAL
INTERNAL
Jacinta Kelly
CASUAL
EXTERNAL
3. Student numbers 2012
Semester
SS
Enrolled Withdrawn % Withdrawn
59
34
58%
59
34
58%
I
165
31
19%
E
114
66
58%
279
97
35%
66
44
67%
S2 Total
66
44
67%
Grand total
404
175
43.3%
E
Ss Total
S1
S1 Total
E
22

Comments on withdrawals?
There are a high number of withdrawals in the external classes that continues a trend from previous years.
This is theorised to be due to many students overestimating how many units can be realistically studied
externally, and also difficulty managing group work. There is an ongoing effort to ensure a high quality of
online material/teaching method to assist group work.
4. Special projects/activities
It is intended that CUC106 will continue working with EWB to use a focus project in East Timor to drive the
course work deliverables. In collaboration with EWB, staff have been researching an appropriate community
based project in East Timor to work with sustainably for a number of years (start date 2014).
5. Student evaluations (SELTS)
The following summarises students SELT scores and over the three semesters of 2012. Scores are detailed in
the table over the page.

Score Range:
SS 2011: 4.50 – 7.00, avg is 5.9
Internal S1 2012: 5.32 – 6.16, avg is 5.8, External: 4.10 - 5.88, avg is 5.01
S2 2012 External: 5.40 – 6.20, avg is 5.9

Key issues raised in comments :
Potential Improvements: There weren’t a large number of “Unit Improvements” comments – the key ones
are mentioned here; Structure of assignments out of order (2 comments), working in groups is too difficult
(3 comments)
Positive feedback: Generally the students seemed to really enjoy the workshop format of teaching and the
passion shown by the lecturers/tutors (as reflected in the strong SELT scores);
“Great Unit, well organised, clear delivery. Lecturers very helpful”
“The class is presented in a well laid out format and the lecturer is a good teacher”

Discussion/actions: The structure of the assignments has been adjusted. Moderation of assignments is
ongoing and as well as moderation session for each assignment random checks will also be conducted to
ensure consistent and appropriate marking. Group work is a key aspect of this unit, however we are working
actively to make group work less daunting for external students. Some measures such as including an
assessed group communication component and providing more online guidance from the tutors using
Collaborate are being developed for 2013.
23
Student Evaluations (SELTS) 2012
Questions
Mean Likert Score
2011 SS
Internal
offering
1. The teaching of this unit is
well organised.
2. The delivery of this unit is
sufficient for effective learning.
3. The teaching stimulates my
interest in this unit.
4. The unit provides
opportunities for participation
and sharing of ideas.
5. It is made clear what is
expected of me.
6. The feedback on my work is
provided promptly.
7. Overall, the assessment of
the unit is fair.
8. This unit is well taught.
9. I received sufficient
information on how to use
Learnline.
10. I have sufficient access to a
computer for my learning in this
unit.
11. The incorporation of Library
resources in Learnline helps me
in my learning.
12. I have sufficient access to
assistance when using Learnline.
Mean Likert Score
2012 S1
Mean Likert Score
2012 S2
External
offering
External
offering
Internal
offering
External
offering
Internal
offering
6.33
6.04
4.90
6
5.33
5.92
4.60
5.80
5.67
5.32
4.70
5.80
6.33
6.00
5.40
6.20
6.00
5.76
5.20
6.20
6.00
5.60
5.10
6.20
5.67
5.60
5.00
6.20
5.67
4.50
5.76
6.16
4.90
4.90
6.00
6.00
7.00
6.40
5.50
6.40
6.67
5.71
5.88
5.40
5.67
5.92
4.10
5.40
24
Attachment E
Preliminary Proposal for including “sustainability issues”
in the common unit CUC100 Academic Literacies
Prepared by Nicola Rolls for Common Unit Management
in consultation with Trent Newman, Elizabeth Thynne & Mike Lawes
1. Introduction
Aim of proposal
This proposal aims to capture the principle considerations for embedding sustainability content in the
current CUC100. It outlines the key participants in the redevelopment, the formal process for redevelopment
and an initial snap shot of what the new unit might look like. It is important to note that this snapshot is a
starting point that will be developed and refined by the review team.
Rationale
The common unit program is compulsory for all first year CDU students (unless they have qualified for
exemption). The program attracts more than a 1000 students a year, runs in all three semesters and has an
external cohort of approximately 65%. Students are required to complete two units: CUC107 Cultural
Intelligence and Capabilities and one of the academic literacy focus units, CUC100 Academic Literacies (for
Humanities students) or CUC106 Design & Innovation: Communicating Technology (for Science/Technology
students).
Because sustainability is already covered in CUC106, we propose replacing the “graduate skills” focus which
currently drives the application of literacies in CUC100, with the topic of “sustainability”, to ensure that all
first year students are exposed to this important theme. Where appropriate, sustainability resources will be
shared across CUC106 and CUC100. The social/cultural aspects of sustainability are also picked up in CUC107.
Thus, the sustainability theme will be a thread throughout the whole common unit program, further
reinforcing a holistic, world-view perspective.
The topic of sustainability lends itself well to the principle aim of CUC100, which is to induct the students into
the art of engaging in the discursive environment of the western academy. This is achieved in the current unit
through discussion about how language is used to engage with the world academically and learning to apply
these understandings through researching, reading and writing about relevant, topical, multidisciplinary
issues.
Initial conversations with sustainability content experts (Sue Carthew, Andrew Campbell and Mike Lawes)
and the “sustainability strategies” consultant Elena Bondareva, as well as directives from management,
suggest that the proposed integration of sustainability content has considerable potential. By using an
approach that explores the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social and economic from a
multidisciplinary perspective, students will have the opportunity to apply their own disciplinary focus as they
engage in the topic. This is essential for common unit students who are represented by all disciplines at the
university.
As Elena suggested, by ensuring that all CDU students are exposed to the issues of sustainability in the literacy
common units, all CDU students will be introduced to the broader ecological, social, ethical and economic
context in which they live as students, and in which they will work as graduates. The sustainability topic will
25
introduce students to tools and resources needed to address wider societal issues in the context of their
disciplinary learning.
2. General approach to including sustainability issues in CUC100
The focus of CUC100 (Academic literacies) is to build students’ academic literacy skills. The sustainability
content will provide students with real-world issues to drive the students’ application and practice of
academic literacy. Thus, the coverage of sustainability should be generic and introductory. Three of the 12 (34 hour) internal and external online tutorials in the unit will be allocated to sustainability topics, with the
thread continuing to be supported through academic literacies activities throughout the semester.
These three focus sessions will aim to, first, build students’ knowledge and understanding of the issues
through a “lecture” overview of key considerations, and then explore these in more depth through the core
readings and focused discussions. This will prepare them to do further research and respond to the major
essay. Through the formal discussions, students will be asked to consider these issues from the point of view
of their disciplines/ proposed professions. Materials will be presented in a range of modes using online and
other technologies to enhance access and engagement.
Logistics
CUC100 is offered in Semester 1 and 2 and in the Summer Semester each year, both internally and externally,
so lectures will have to be presented through flexible learning technologies to support students both on and
off campus. We have approximately 1000 students a year. Apart from an introductory lecture for all CUC100
students in Week 1, the internal classes are run in ELearning studios with a maximum of 45 students, so we
have up to 6 groups/classes each week.
Because CUC100 is delivered through ELearning studios, there are exciting opportunities to bring expert
voices into face-to-face and online classrooms through podcasts and other media, so experts need not be
restricted to the traditional face-to-face lecture mode. We need not be restricted to experts on campus either;
there may be online lectures we can use too.
Possibly the most challenging logistic will be to capture the sustainability content into three weeks of
teaching. For each of the 3 themes of sustainability, there will be 3 hours per week to introduce the topic,
unpack the associated reading and discuss the associated sustainability issues. Students will be facilitated, in
the subsequent learning sessions, to explore these ideas in more depth through their research, reading and
preparation for arguing the issues in their final essay.
Engaging the experts from RIEL
In developing a sustainability focus for the unit, we welcome input from RIEL to assist the CUC100
development team in:

Delivering, alongside the CUC100 Coordinator/s, a component of the introductory lecture to highlight the
relevance of sustainability as a theme and inspire students’ engagement in it.

Developing (and delivering through podcast/other technologies or face-to-face) the three keynote
lectures (20-30 minutes) on each of the three sustainability themes: Environmental, Social and Economic.

Identifying three suitable core readings for these themes.

Framing appropriate essay questions for the major assignment arguing for sustainability.

Identifying any other useful resources to assist students.
26
Beyond these key lectures, RIEL staff would not be required to teach or assess/mark students work as this
will be done by the regular CUC100 teaching team. That said, we welcome any staff who wish to join the team
and commit to a full semester of teaching: i.e. 3-4 hours a week for 12 weeks and associated marking and
weekly curriculum meetings.

Unit Review and Development Process
In accordance with the standard approach to common unit review and revision, the redevelopment of
CUC100 will be facilitated by the common unit management group. In consultation with the Theme Leader,
CUC100 coordinators will conduct a series of meetings with content experts from RIEL (represented by Mike
Lawes) to discuss and agree on details of sustainability content, assessment, learning materials (including
technologies). This core development group (CUC100 coordinator, theme leader and RIEL rep Mike Lawes)
will meet at key points in the development with the CUC100 unit review group to provide broader
interdisciplinary input to the review.
Unit Review Group
The unit review group is comprised of the CUC100 Coordinators - Trent Newman and Elizabeth Thynne, the
CU Theme Leader - Nicola Rolls, Coordinators from CUC106 - Micah Thorbjornsen and CUC107 Jaimee
Hamilton, Discipline representatives - Danial Kelly (Law); Penny Wurm (Environmental Science); Beverly
Turnbull (Nursing); Greg Shaw (Education); Mal Flack (Psychology).

Timeline
The aim is to have the new content (4 lectures, readings and discussion forums and revised assessment)
ready for delivery in Semester 2 of 2013, however, this timeline will be confirmed once the unit development
group have their initial meeting with Mike Lawes, 19th November 2012.
3. Example framework for the revised CUC100
The following framework represents an initial draft as an example of how sustainability might be embedded
in the current CUC100. However, the fine details will be examined, developed and refined through our formal
review process. Since the current unit is extremely well received by students (SELTS >6 out of 7 for all
questions) and is meeting its objectives for building academic literacies, we do not envisage any significant
change to the academic skills component of the curriculum, apart from possibly the sequence and some
nuancing of the literacies to bring out more explicit engagement with the development of argument, logic, and
identifying supporting evidence as they relate to the sustainability theme.
To effectively incorporate sustainability into the existing literacy content, the semester could be organized in
the following sequence of 3 stages each covering 4 weeks:
To effectively incorporate sustainability into the existing literacy content, the semester could be organized in
the following sequence of 3 stages, each covering 4 weeks to total a 12 week semester:
Stage 1/ Understanding sustainability from an academic viewpoint: Talking, critically thinking, reading
and summarizing issues regarding sustainability
Stage 2/ Researching and critically thinking about sustainability: Analyzing the essay topics, thinking and
planning for your discussion and researching the issues further.
Stage 3/ Writing a discussion about sustainability: Structuring, composing and writing a logical, credible
academic discussion.
27
Unit Aims
This unit aims to introduce students to key academic literacy skills and provide them with an
opportunity to apply their academic voice by communicating about important global issues. Through
using sustainability issues as the conduit for learning academic literacy skills, CUC100 also introduces
students to the broader ecological, social, ethical and economic context in which they live as a student,
and in which they will work as a graduate; and equips them with tools and resources for making a
positive contribution to addressing these issues in the context of their disciplinary learning.
Unit Objectives
Objectives 1-5 below are the existing unit objectives. Objective 6 relates to sustainability and is a draft
additional objective.
1. To enable students to develop skills in academic reading, writing, and critical evaluation.
2. To strengthen students' information literacy in regard to their ability to identify, access, evaluate,
organise and communicate information.
3. To ensure that students are able to make use of commonly required computer skills, such as word
processing, internet, email, creating visual presentations and utilising Learnline the university's online
learning environment.
4. To help students appreciate different ways of considering their world particularly the critical
evaluation favoured by western academic tradition
5. To provide students with the opportunity to learn in a variety of modes, in a variety of ways and to
become familiar with university teaching and learning culture.
6. To build students’ broad understanding of issues of sustainability and their ability to apply these
issues to a range of “real world” disciplinary contexts.
Summary of Assessments
Focus
Value
Word Length
Due
Reflections, discussions,
learnings: online discussion
forums on positioning yourself in
relation to key sustainability
arguments
20%
150-200
per forum
Weeks 2,4,5 &
11
Assignment
2
Summarising and critiquing the
3 core readings for your essay:
annotated bibliography
20%
200 -300
per reading
Week 7
Assignment
3
Outlining your essay: Annotated
PowerPoint presentation
10%
8 slides
Week 9
Assignment
4
The final product: your
discursive essay on one global
sustainability
Controversy
50%
1500
Week 12
Assessment
item
Assignment
1
28
Attachment F
Research Proposal November 2012
Delivering Success: Flexible and Online Learning Modes and Student Progress in First Year
Charles Darwin University (2010-15)
To: Associate Prof. M. Carroll, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Teaching and Learning
Chief Investigators: Bill Tyler, Charles Webb, Nicola Rolls
1. Summary:
This project will investigate the impact of flexible modes of learning and attendance in the first year of
university through an evidence-based exploration of student response to fleximode pedagogies and the
effect of these on their academic progress and perceptions of the teaching and learning experience. It
will be a timely study providing the University with vital information to maintain and improve its
position in an increasingly competitive higher education market. This will provide be a data rich
alternative to staff- or theory-driven models of course design and delivery.
Building on the Common Unit Monitoring Project, this study will explore and estimate the unique and
combined effects of the recent and rapid increases in: (a) the diversity of student background; (b) the
externalization of study modes; (c) the widespread deployment of virtual learning technologies on
patterns of student retention, progress and academic achievement. These effects will be monitored over
the three year period from 2012-2014 using 2011 data (pre deployment of comprehensive online
classroom technologies in CUCs) as the baseline for comparison.
The project will also include comparisons with other, course-specific, core First Year units with large
enrolments. It will employ innovative Propensity Score Matching techniques (PSM) in estimating the
causal effect on student progress of socio-demographic background, mode of study and engagement
with online learning environments.
The study will include the following components to be captured and reported annually over the period
of the study:
(a) A review of the literature on first year learning and the effects of flexible and online learning
approaches on student engagement and satisfaction with particular attention to “first in family”
and non-traditional students.
(b) Ongoing monitoring of students retention and success in the common units from the point of
view of student demographic
(c) An exploration of the pedagogic impact of flexible and online learning approaches on
students’ retention and success and analysis of students’ experience of different flexible delivery
approaches as assessed from customised survey instruments.
2. Aims and Significance of the Project
Rationale: Over the past decade the proportion of CDU students studying in external and related
modes of study in the first year of Higher Education has risen dramatically (now above 70%), while
the boundaries between internal and external forms of participation have been blurred.
29
These changes have been accompanied by an increasing proportion of ‘non-traditional’ students
(mature age, regionally-located and Non-English Speaking Background, with non-secondary
education admission through VET, TEP etc.), almost a half of whom are the “first in their family”, as
indexed by level of both parents’ education achievement.
In response to these environmental challenges, the University, along with many other tertiary
institutions, has embraced the new flexible mode and online pedagogies or course delivery,
assessment and student support. So pervasive has been this technological response, there are few
students, whether in external or in internal modes of study, part- or full-time, who have not been
exposed to one or more of technologically-mediated and interactive modes of learning, also known
under the umbrella of “Virtual Learning Environments” (or VLE’s).
This project focuses on the effects of flexible and online teaching and learning on the CDU student
population to build on the comprehensive earlier studies of retention and success in common units
and other First Year modules documented in previous Common Unit Monitoring Project reports, the
most recent being, Tyler, Rolls, Bridgman and Flack (2011). In addition to its focus on flexible and
online learning, this study will incorporate more recent years of intake into the Common Unit
program and other large first year study units.
The conjunction of changes in intake, modes and attendance and technological applications in
teaching and learning experienced at CDU raises the following questions:
1) What do we mean by flexible and online (or “technologically mediated”) pedagogies and to
what extent is it bound by physical space, time and institutional schedules?
2) What are the trends in student exposure to, and participation in these new forms of teaching
and learning in the case of the Common Units and other large core units over the years 20102014? How can levels of student engagement with these new technologies and pedagogies be
measured?
3) Do changes over this period in the composition of the student intake (e.g. socio-demographic
and educational background) affect First Year student outcomes (rates of Withdrawal
before Census Date, Percentage of Course completed, Grade Point Average)?
4) Does the mode of attendance, and/or level of engagement with flexible and online
pedagogies exert an effect on a student’s academic progress (persistence with study, units
completed, grade awarded)? Are certain learning tools preferred or more effective for
different student backgrounds?
5) Are any effects identified in (4) independent of the influences of a student’s background,
part-time status and other situational factors?
6) How can the systematic exploration of the causes of student attrition, progress and
completion inform teaching and learning strategies both for identifying groups of students
most “at risk” and for developing appropriate pedagogical responses?
Significance: This study of the “treatment effect” of students’ levels of exposure to, and engagement
with flexible and online pedagogies on rates of retention and progress in First Year therefore
provides at a general or institutional level:
30
1) A timely extension of the existing Common Unit monitoring projects and an opportunity to
explore the effects of recent changes across the whole of First Year intake over a six year
period.
2) Evidence for CDU management and teaching staff as to what tools and pedagogies can
enhance the learning experience and maximize the retention and success of our unique and
diverse cohort, through specific findings relating to:
a. The size and significance of the individual and joint effects of attendance mode and
flexible and online pedagogies on students’ rates of progress and retention;
b. Identifying “what works” in maximizing the metrics of student progress and
retention in First Year units in modes of attendance and forms of delivery and
assessment; this will include an exhaustive analysis of the interactions between
student background, and online learning.
c. Addressing the learning problems of groups of students most “at risk” of withdrawal
and failure across a range of educational fields and teaching-learning contexts.
At a strategic level, this study will demonstrate University’s commitment to reflective practice as
well as the commitment to ensuring non-traditional students’ engagement with, and success, in
Higher Education.
Importantly, this study will provide CDU management and teaching staff with some general
principles for developing and adopting appropriate flexible learning pedagogies for effective
learning. It will provide comprehensive, tangible evidence of what tools and pedagogies enhance the
learning experience and success of our diverse student cohort. The findings will also provide
management with a description of the range of technologies and teaching and learning practices
being utilised across CDU programs in the first year.
Finally, this investigation will serve as a “best practice” model for the evaluation, development and
delivery of flexible and online learning that could be made available to other universities with
similarly high proportions of distance-mode and non-traditional cohorts.
3. Project Design and Delivery
Structure of Project: The operational components of this study will be divided into two main parts:
Part I (Equity and Success in First Year 2010-12) will be an extension of methodology Part A of
the most recent Common Units Management Committee report (2011). It will consolidate the
findings of the Monitoring Project from 1999. It will track trends and patterns of student attrition,
satisfaction and academic success in the Common Units, combined with a causal analysis of the
effects of equity and situational factors, including, for the first time, indices of a student’s Socioeconomic (SES) and First in Family statuses.
This component of the project will be a strong and necessary basis for the second part of the project
which focuses on the relationship between flexible and online learning modes and student success
and progress in the common units and other first year core course units.
Part II (Pedagogy, Technology and Student Achievement 2012-2014) will expand the Common
Units monitoring project of Phase I for these years by:
(i) Widening of the First Year sample beyond the Common Units to include a selected number of
large core units from heavily-subscribed courses (Education, Nursing, Business, Law) with
online availability.
(ii) Developing instrumentation measuring the levels of student’s exposure to, and engagement
with, flexible and online learning environments (both synchronous and asynchronous) in all
31
major attendance modes (internal, external, “fleximode”).
(iii) Investigating the effects of exposure and/or participation in online and other forms of
mediated learning on student outcomes (course withdrawal, completion and grade(s)
awarded) across a range of socio-demographic and situational factors.
(iv) As a component of (iii) student outcomes prior to significant use of flexible and online
learning will be compared with the current situation.
Reporting Timetable: A written and verbal report will be provided at the end of each year to
capture the key findings
Part I A draft report of this first part will be available to the Common Unit Management Committee
in November 2013 and will provide a set of benchmark indicators for the second phase.
Part II Updated annual progress reports in the form of discussion papers relating to: (i) the trends
or patterns in the Common Units and large core selected First Year units; (ii) the development of
flexible and online teaching and learning tools and other operational issues (iii) preliminary findings
on the pedagogic impact and effects of uses of different flexible learning modes on students
experience, retention and success for discussion and feedback (iv) conference papers, workshops
and publications.
A final, major report will be provided in July of 2015, together with a consolidated archive of projectrelated materials. It is expected that at this stage the CDU will have the basis for the development of
a manualised package that integrates theoretical, methodological and pedagogical dimensions of
Phase II of the project as a marketable product that may be of interest to other universities.
Research Design: The overall design (including the major blocks of variables) of this project is
based on the exploration of the causal sequences for the Common Units as set out in the predictive
model (Fig. 1). This model will be developed, as needed, for comparison with the other core First
Year units in order to provide a more detailed analysis of the impact of technologically mediated
approaches to learning.
Fig. 1 Predicting Student Outcomes in First Year: a Generic Model for the Understanding the First Year
Experience
32
The model (Fig. 1) indicates that causal sequences flow from background to student and institutional
factors, mediated by institutional process of admission, situational status and pedagogic
environment (Teaching and Learning Modalities). Central to the quantitative analysis, will be the
estimation of the size and significance of the causal effect of each factor when the other variables (or
blocks of variables) are held constant or controlled for. For qualitative analysis, the same causal
patterns will be explored by surveys, interviews and focus group methodologies.
Analytical Strategy (Phase I and Phase II)
Previous reports in the Common Unit Monitoring Project have demonstrated the team’s proficiency
in the display, analysis and interpretation in quantitative and qualitative research. We intend to
continue applications of these techniques, ranging from graphical univariate and bivariate displays
to multivariate analysis (including data mining, segmentation analysis, logistic regression).
However, for the exploration of causal effects in observational studies, the Propensity Score
Matching Analysis technique (see Guo and Fraser, 2010) has proven particularly useful as an
alternative to the estimation of treatment effect where random assignment of individual subject to
treatment groups is not possible and where, consequently, rigorous methods are required to
“control for” the effects of observed and unobserved covariates.
At a purely descriptive level, the Propensity Matching Score technique provides a useful exploratory
methodology for understanding the changes in the extent and types of ” exposure to different
learning technologies”. For the purposes of causal inference, the technique will then offer procedures
for estimating and removing the effects of any bias in sample profiles by matching individuals as
closely as possible (using Nearest Neighbour or more sophisticated algorithms). Rather than using
regression of analysis of covariance techniques to control for prior differences between these two
groups, the true effect of the treatment effect can be estimated. We propose to undertake
preliminary investigations on the 2010-12 data using this methodology.
Data Sets and Variables
Quantitative For the Common Units, the data for background, admission, situational and outcome
variables (Fig. 1) will be drawn under the equivalent business rules as for previous phases, from
central CDU data bases. For comparison, core compulsory First Year units, which utilize an extensive
range of learning technologies, from Bachelor programs in Law, Education and Nursing will also be
assembled from these sources.
There are three new variables that will be included, where appropriate, in this study.
1.
Under the Teaching and Learning Situation category, a specialized instrument will be
developed and piloted in 2013 (where a significant range of MMLEs have been introduced
across units) for measuring both a student’s exposure to, and engagement with MMLEs. This
will capture the range of MMLE’s students are exposed to including: collaborate:
synchronous/non syncronous/ didactic/interactive; learnline discussions/blogs/wikis/face to
face; podcasts and other commonly used media.
2. Under the Student Background category, the “First in Family” (indexed by parent education
level), a binary variable, scored 1 if neither parent of an individual student has ever been
enrolled in a Higher Education course or institution.
3. Socio Economic Status will be supplied from the DEST definition (based on ABS Collection
District or Postcode averages for the SIEFA Education and Occupation scale).
33
Qualitative (student experience):
Student response to surveys regarding their teaching and learning experience will utilize a mixture
of Likert scale and closed nominal category response questions from existing SELT surveys and a
new survey instrument. This will include the question pair – what did you think was the best
aspect/what did you think most needed improving.
As with the quantitative analysis, student’s perceptions will be correlated with the same variables
outlined in Figure 1 for Student background, Student Situation, Admission basis and Teaching and
Learning Modality.
Generational groups will also be isolated as an additional variable. These are based on Oblinger and
Oblinger’s (2005:2.9) discussions regarding the net generation and other generational groups.
Namely: generation z (18-25 years), net gen (26-35 years), gen x (36-45 years), baby boomers(4655 years) and matures ( over 55 years).
The findings of the qualitative (student experience) and quantitative (students grades) results will
be triangulated along with the relevant literature findings to assist in the interpretation and
utilisation of research findings.
4. Expected Outputs
The outputs over the duration of the project will include:
Annual reports
A written report will be provided for the Common Unit Committee, and Learning and Teaching
Group each year of the of the project
Seminars and workshops for academic staff
In consultation with OLT a presentation of findings and a related workshop/s on effective use of
learning technologies for first year engagement will be provided each year of the project.
Website
Findings will be made available through a dynamic “retention and success” section of the Common
Unit website
Refereed Journal Article
The following journals will be approached for publication:

International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education

Journal of Higher Education

Review of Educational Research

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice
Refereed Conference Proceedings
There will be number suitable conferences to present these findings. For example:
16th International First Year in Higher Education Conference 2013.
34
5. Budget
This schedule provides budgetary requirements for each year of the project. The principle
requirements for the budget are for consultancy. While, the participation of Nicola Rolls and some
administrative support can be provided through the School of Academic Language and Learning a
small budget is included for the report writing and editorial component.
Item
Details
Consultancy Bill Tyler *
Part I & II Quantitative Research
design analysis and annual and
final reporting.
Part II Qualitative Research
design analysis, annual and final
reporting including lit review.
Project management, qualitative,
lit review and reporting.
Editing for reports
Consultancy Charles
Webb **
Buyout N.Rolls ***
Administrative/editorial
assistance
2013
2014
Mid 2015 Total
495 hrs
43,000
495 hrs
43,000
243 hrs
21,000
107,000
300 hrs
30,000
300 hrs
30,000
150 hrs
15,000
75,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
75,000
75,000
38,000
$188,000
* At the CDU rate of $86.54 per hour (for stage 04 of a Level D Casual Researcher as from 1/05/2013, including
25% loading for vacation leave etc.)
** At the CDU rate of $99.13 per hour (for stage 04 of a Level E Casual Researcher as from 1/05/2013, including
25% loading for vacation leave etc.)
*** Buyout to cover marking at hourly rate of $38.61 + oncosts
NB Hours in subsequent (post 2013) years will be adjusted per the new EBA rates
References
Tyler, W., Rolls, N., Bridgman, S., Flack, M. (2011) The Common Units: Equity, Achievement and Retention:
an Innovative First Year University Program in Review. Report prepared for the Common Unit
Management Group, School of Academic Language and Learning, November 2011, Charles Darwin
University.
Guo, S. & Fraser, Fraser, M.W. (2010) Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications.
Sage Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series (12), London.
Birrell, B. (2006) Implications of Low English Standards Among Overseas Students at Australian
Universities. People and Place 14, 53-64.
Brabazon, T. (2002) Digital hemlock: Internet education and the poisoning of teaching. Sydney:
University of New South Wales Press.
http://www.NTU.edu.au/planning/documents/2002StatisticsReport.pdf
Clark,R.E. & Sugrue,B.M. (1991) "Research on instructional media, 1978-1988" in G.J.Anglin (ed.)
Instructional technology: past, present, and future. ch.30, Englewood, Colorado: Libraries unlimited.
semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 8, 240-247
Davies R. and Elias P. (2003), Dropping Out: A Study of Early Leavers from Higher Education. Research
Report 386. Department for Education and Skills.
35
Dearing, R. (1997) Higher education in the learning society. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education. London: HMSO.
DiFiore, L., (2003) Financial Aid Strategies For Non-Traditional Students, Part I, What is a NonTraditional Student?, retrieved from http://collegehelp.info/scholarship/nonTraStu_ptI.htm
Donnelly, K (2007) Dumbing down: Outcomes-based and politically correct - the impact of the Culture
Wars on our schools. Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books.
Hagedorn, L (2005) “How to define retention; a new look at an old problem” . Center for Higher
Education Policy and Analysis, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles CA. available at:
http://www.honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/rrc/pdf/How_to_Define Retention.pdf
Hillman, K. (2005) The First Year Experience: The Transition from Secondary School to University and
TAFE in Australia. Report for Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth, ACER, Victoria, Australia.
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (February 19, 2008) Staying the course: the retention
of students on higher education courses, 10th Report of Session 2007-08, House of Commons, London,
UK.
James R, Kraus K & Jennings C. (2009) ,The First Year Experience
in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The
University of Melbourne, March 2010
Kramarski, B. and Feldman, Y. (2000) Internet in the Classroom: Effects on Reading Comprehension,
Motivation and Metacognitive Awareness. Educational Media International 37, 149-155.
Laurillard, D. (2002a) Rethinking Teaching for the Knowledge Society EDUCAUSE Review, 37, 16–25.
Laurillard, D. (2002b) Rethinking University Teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use
of learning technologies. London: Routledge.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging
from the Internet and other information and communication tecnologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau
(Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading, fifth edition. 1568-1611, Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Longden, B (2006) An Institutional Response to Changing Student Expectations and their Impact on
Retention Rates, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 28, 173-187.
Machin, S. & Vignoles, A. (2004) Educational Inequality: The Widening Socio-Economic Gap. Fiscal
Studies 25, 107-128.
McVay, L. M. (2001) Effective Student Preparation for Online Learning. In The Technology Source,
retrieved from<http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?shows=article&id=1034>
Northedge, A. (2003) Rethinking Teaching in the Context of Diversity. Teaching in Higher Education 8,
17-32.
Oblinger, D.and Oblinger, J. (2010)Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation.
In Educause 1999-2010, retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/IsItAgeorITFirstStepsTowardUnd/
6058
36
OECD 2011, Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators © OECD, retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3746,en_2649_37455_48634114_1_1_1_37455,00.html
Quinn, J. (2004) Understanding Working-Class ‘Drop-out’ from Higher Education through a Sociocultural Lens: Cultural narratives and local contexts. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 14,
57-74.
Tinto, V. (1997) 'Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of Student
Turner, F. & Crews, J. (2005) Bricks and clicks: A comparative analysis of online and traditional
education settings. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2(4), pp. 38.
Tyler-Smith, K. (2006) Early Attrition among First Time eLearners: A Review of Factors that Contribute
to Drop-out, Withdrawal and Non-completion Rates of Adult Learners undertaking eLearning
Programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no2/tyler-smith.htm
Wylie, J. R. (2005) Non-Traditional Student Attrition in Higher Education: A Theoretical Model of
Separation, Disengagement then Dropout. SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney,
Australia.
37