Charles Darwin University

Common Units Committee

Meeting 1/2012 of the Common Units Committee will be held on Thursday December 8th at 1-3pm in the Community Room, Building Orange 12.1

A G E N D A

Item Attachments

1. Welcome (new chair) and apologies

2. Minutes Meeting 1, 2011 A

3. TOR’s Common Unit Management A1

4. Standing Items

4.1 Funding/Staffing Matters (NR)

4.6 Academic Consultant Report (NR)

4.2 CUC100 Matters (NR)

4.3 CUC106 Matters (MT)

4.4 CUC107 Matters (JH)

4.5 Library Information Skills (BR)

5. “Sustainability” in Common Units

6. Formalising Common Unit Program aims

7. Promoting Common Units

8. Retention & Success Project 2012 B

9. PD for CU Teaching Staff

7. Other Business

Attachment A

Charles Darwin University

Common Units Management Group Minutes

Meeting 2 2011:1pm, Thursday 8th October in the 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), Jaimee Hamilton (JH), Rose Mcldowney(RM), Lynley Walker (LW)

Apologies: Sharon Bridgeman, Elizabeth Foggo-Thynne, Giselle Burns, Micah Thorbesen.

Item Minutes Action Items

1. Welcome from the Chair. The chair opens the meeting by introducing himself as the new chair and explaining that as he has been called away to an urgent meeting he will only be available for the first ½ hour. He proposes to deal with Item 1 Minutes and Item 2 the TOR’s in this time.

2. Minutes The chair notes that the minutes have a number of typographical errors and that he has not been listed as present at the previous meeting when he was.

LW objects to the use of the redundant acronym RPL in the minutes in reference to students gaining Credit Transfer or Professional assessment for common units. Nicola explains that the term is used as a general phrase to describe the various ways students might be exempt from the common units. MC suggests that, regardless, this term should not be used and that when referring to this process Credit Transfer could be used in place of RPL. NR points out that there are two possible options Professional Assessment or Credit Transfer so both terms would need to be used.

GW notes that with regard to the new iteration of CUC107 proper compliance to processes for application need to be in place where a comprehensive portfolio of skills and knowledge should be supplied and approved by the CUC107 coordinator. Currently for the “Grow Your Own Program” Indigenous students were given automatic PA for CUC107 with no consultation with the Common Units Theme Leader or CUC107 coordinator. MC asks Nicola to provide him with a written outline regarding these issues of compliance re granting of PA and CT.

NR to correct minutes

NR to provide PA/CT compliance details to MC

3. TORS Common Unit ManagementMC refers to the Terms of Reference for the management group and the necessity for these to be formally recognised and aligned with university governance structures. At the moment the CU are hanging out on their own with no status in academic governance terms. Consequently, they are being bypassed by other governance processes and in turn are able to

bypass these official processes. He cites the recent upset over processes for the CUC107 reaccreditation as an example. He suggests schools and faculties want more of a by-in. With the reintroduction of Teaching and Learning committees in faculties there is an opportunity to formalise relationships by having a Common Unit delegate to the committees. RM suggests it is also important to formalise the common unit involvement as part of course development teams as courses can benefit from a proper understanding of the role CU’s play and the L&T examples of best practice in CU’s and vice versa. NR asks would that delegate be the Theme Leader CU’s? The group replies in the affirmative although JS suggest it would be too onerous for the CU theme leader to be represented across all unit development teams so rather the representation could be at L&T Committee level and by invitation to Course development.

The following changes to the TOR’s are suggested by MC:

Dot point 2 should be changed to read:

Be responsible to the Academic Board through the Learning and Teaching Committee for matters relating to common units.

Dot point 3 remove

RM suggests Membership should include Faculty Associate Deans L&T instead of deans since Deans are overcommitted with meetings. Group agrees. Membership will continue to include: Coordinators, Library Rep, Student Rep, ACIKE Rep. GW asks that ACIKE be asked to formally appoint a representative. NR draws to attention the item in the minutes where on Terry Dunbar’s suggestion Greg was proposed as the rep for ACIKE. She agreed to approach Terry to confirm this. Greg also suggested CU Theme leader should be represented in the ACIKE Learning and Teaching Committee soon to be established.

Attachment A1

NR to formalise ACIKE rep and student rep as well as representation on learning and teaching committees.

4. Standing items

4.1 Funding/Staffing matters:The budget as at November shows a balance of $ 67026.41 but we anticipate this will be used for summer semester salaries.

Budget for 2011 Spending to Nov.Casual salaries $ 260,000.00 $ 261,401.00

(approx)Photocopying/stationary/text/misc.

$ 8,496.00 $ 6,884.17

Catering $ 996.00 $ 1,030.42Total $ 336,242.00 $ 269,315.59Balance as at Nov 2011 $67026.41 for Summer semester

encumbered salaries $6828.82

Payment for coordinators discussed at last meeting

NR reintroduced this issue pointing out the necessity to compensate coordinators for the considerable time and effort involved in maintaining best practice in these units with large numbers of students and big teaching teams. The group agree this is important.

A possible formulae based on buy out at repeat tutor rate ($67.91)

500 + students 4 hours/week for 12 weeks = $3259.68

500 - students 2 hours/week for 12 weeks = $1629.84Total cost to budget /semester/ would be up to $8,149.20Because there is currently no specific allocation in the budget. We would have to reduce casual budget by $20,000 to afford this.

GW asks whether internal and external coordinators would be compensated equally. NR suggests this would be fair but the amount available would depend on the budget. With the above formula we would need approx $20,000 for the three semesters. NR will work with the faculty finance officer to see what moneys could be put aside for next year towards this.

NR asks LW to explain a new model being considered to cut down the number of casual employees. LW explains she is looking into fixed-term contract options for staff over 6 months or a year. JH points out that this would promote a greater commitment from casual staff. Group agree

NR to discuss options for identifying coordination moneys in 2012 budget with faculty finance officer

NR to work with Lynley on a possible model for f-t contracts

4.2 CUC100 report.See attachment A2

Attachment A2

4.3 CUC106 report.See attachment A2

Attachment A2

4.4 CUC107 reportSee attachment A2

Attachment A2

4.5 Library skills Bernadette Royal reports that things have gone well with library skills with considerable work being done with CUC100 to develop an online presence and plans for more of this with CUC106 and CUC107 next year. Feedback from students is very good.

4.6 Academic Consultant reportFinalising Retention and Success Report

Nicola tables the third Retention and Success report in draft form – this is the written report of presented verbally at previous meeting. She sums up key findings and invites queries and comments from the group to be raised before the report is finalised.

Remaining items for theme leader report see attachment A3.

Attachment A3

5.&6 Common Unit Coordination & Line management for CU coordinators and teaching staff (JS)

Coordinators (including Theme Leader) leave. Discussion between Jenny Silburn, Greg Williams, Lynley Walker, Rose McEldowney, Bernadette Royal.

In introducing this item, JS acknowledges the significant commitment involved in this role in providing cutting edge pedagogy which is nationally recognised through the ALTC award. Because the common units attract a huge cohort of enrolled students, with 62% external, there is a need to ensure the coordinators are provided with the best support and skills through mentoring from the Heads’ of School and Theme Leader. The following points were raised by the group:

JW proposes a two day induction, additional to the current induction for teachers in common units. This could be modelled on similar inductions at other universities to ensure coordinators are aware of issues that could arise and how to effectively manage these. They may also need more mentoring if reasonably new to academia.

A further proposal was that coordinators should be formally appointed through an expression of interest and interview process.

There was discussion regarding the possible incentives/benefits to the successful coordinators? Financial buyout? Time in Lieu (TIL) as well? Incentive may not be monetary but TIL instead. This could be difficult to manage and will need some conditions clearly defined. The extra incentive and support for coordinators could then be beneficial to students and may help to stem natural attrition and improve retention rates.

In terms of line management, it was confirmed that coordinators will continue to report to the Theme leader who is currently Nicola. Where input at the next level is required both the Head of SALL and the Head of the School the coordinator belongs to will work together to resolve issues with the coordinator and Theme Leader.

Call for expressions of interest will be based on Attachment E ‘Coordinator Responsibilities’.

There is a need to consider that this is a very important 1st yr unit which if managed correctly will have flow on effect to the whole university.

Policy should be developed to clarify this appointment process as per a 3 yr cycle/contract? Mentoring and team teaching will be encouraged.

A major incentive of this formalisation of Coordination standards is that the Common units have been recognised by ALTC and will be looked on positively in career progression.

RM suggested that the Common Units relationship with Learning

and Teaching Committee should be added to the responsibilities document.

There was agreement from Rose, Lynley, Greg and Jenny for the fol-lowing:

First point of call for the Coordinator will be Theme Leader and then Heads’ of School.

From next year, a 2 year cycle will be adopted, linked to PDRS and with negotiation between incumbent and Head of School on responsibilities.

Greg suggested we need to be more proactive in including all those involved when looking at complaints. University processes to be followed.

6.

Meeting Closed 12am

Attachment A1

COMMON UNITS COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

TITLE OF COMMITTEE

The Committee shall be known as the Common Units Committee (CUC)

ESTABLISHMENT

The Common Units Committee (CUC) is established as a standing committee of the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee of Academic Board.

PURPOSE

The CUC is responsible for the management, delivery and review of the University’s common units program.

MODUS OPERANDI

The CUC reports to Academic Board through the LTC. The CUC will meet at least twice per year and more often as required. The Theme Leader, Common Units will serve as the Executive Officer to CUC. Formal agenda and minutes will be kept. Non ex officio members are appointed by their respective executive manager for a period of

two years. These periods are renewable.

TERMS OF REFERENCES

1. Determine policy and guidelines for best practice teaching and learning in the com-mon units;

2. Be responsible to the Academic Board through the Learning and Teaching Committee for matters relating to common units, including assessing the implications of learning and teaching policies (such as the Common Course Rules) on the common units and advising accordingly.

3. Oversee selection of staff coordinating and teaching the common units program;

4. Be responsible for the development, coordination and quality assurance of common units;

5. Encourage wide inter-faculty participation in the development and teaching of com-mon units;

6. Ensure that all common units are taught in a variety of modes commensurate with stu-dent learning needs;

7. Consider proposals for program and unit strategic review;

8. Advise on the timetabling of units;

9. Oversee the common units budgeting and expenditure;

10. Allocate funds to Faculties and Divisions, in an efficient manner, according to the en-dorsed model and based on teaching loads as advised by Unit Team Coordinators;

11. Contract part time staff, where necessary, on the recommendation of Unit Team Co-ordinators;

12. Endorse examination results as moderated by SALL;

13. Convene an Exemptions Review Committee, when necessary;

14. Evaluate the overall common units program on an ongoing basis, including monitor-ing staff and student satisfaction with the common units and responding accordingly

15. To respond to other matters as may be referred to it from time to time by the PVCA or Aca-demic Board.

Membership

1. Pro Vice-Chancellor Learning, Academic (Chair) ex officio (Martin Carroll)2. Head of School, Academic Language and Learning ex officio (Jennifer Silburn)3. Theme Leader, Common Units ex officio (Nicola Rolls)4. Learning & Teaching Quality Officer, SALL (Sharon Bridgeman) or delegate5. Associate Dean Learning & Teaching, FEHSE (Carol Thorogood)6. Associate Dean Learning & Teaching, FLEBA (Bill Wade)7. Representative, ACIKE (Greg Williams)8. CUC100 Coordinator ex officio (Elizabeth Foggo-Thynne)9. CUC106 Coordinator ex officio (Micah Thorbjornsen)10. CUC107 Coordinator ex officio (Jamie Hamilton)11. Librarian Liaison Coordinator (Barbara Coate)12. Student Representative (vacant)13. Up to two coopted members at the Committee’s discretion.

Acronyms

ACIKE...........Australian Centre for Indigenous Knowledges and Education

CUC...............Common Units prefix

FEHSE...........Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and Environment

FLEBA..........Faculty of Education, Law, Business and Arts

LTC................Learning & Teaching Committee

SALL.............School of Academic Language and Learning, FLEBA

Attachment A2

ANNUAL REPORT for CUC100 – Elizabeth Foggo and Nicola Rolls

December 2011

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, Wimba and Camtasia sessions, and very pleasing Student evaluations were received.

2. Staffing

Permanent staff included Nicola Rolls, Sharon Bridgeman, Fran Tolhurst and Elizabeth Foggo Thynne from SALL. Casual staff included Adelle Barry, Mia Christensen, Jake Garman and Stephanie Zhang, all with backgrounds in Applied Linguistics and Education.

3. Special projects/activitiesThis 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, wimba and camtasia and student comments in SELTS indicate that all of these devices are much appre-ciated. We have also made a point of reminding students to withdraw by census date if they do not plan to complete the unit.

4. Student numbers

Semester Enrolled Withdrawn % Withdrawn

SS E 153 94 61%

Ss Total 153 94 61%

S1 I 204 48 24%

E 554 281 50%

S1 Total 758 329 43%

S2 I 73 24 32%

E 134 95 70%

S2 Total 208 119 57%

Grand total 1119 542 48%

Note while the withdrawals look quite dramatic, this is a result of our encouraging those who have not accessed Learnline by Week 4 to withdraw before census date. Credit transfers and deferrals are

also part of the mix. So for example with just the 48 credit transfers for the year subtracted from the total withdrawals the percentage of attrition is reduced to 41%. Further, our survey of reasons for withdrawal form unit in semester 2 revealed that 4% withdrew because of dissatisfaction with unit content while the remainder cited a range of personal or course enrolment related reasons.

5. Student Evaluations (SELTS)

Scores ranged from 5.97 to 6.9 over the first and second semesters-The SELT scores for the relevant semesters are attached.

Key issues raised through comment section included criticism of Learnline and difficulties getting started and the fact that unit was time consuming. Overall, the comments were very favourable in regards to the excellent textbook, very helpful tutors, and a well-organised unit that will be useful for future studies.

CUC100 Review team met to consider how best to address any issues raised and comments made that indicated a need for improvement. The new version of Learnline seems more user friendly, a Camtasia recording of how to get started has been added to the CUC100 home page, and the first written assignment has been reduced in length to ease the students into the unit and reduce the amount of time they need to spend initially on this unit.

ANNUAL REPORT for CUC106December 2011Unit Coordinator: Micah Thorbjornsen

1. Overview

First Semester was coordinated by Simon Hobbs who has since resigned. I took over midyear: Semester 2 has gone well and Summer Semester is also progressing well.

2. Staffing Permanent staff (include the schools they are from): Simaon Hobbs & Micah Thorbjornsen

(SEIT) and Nicola Rolls (SALL) Numbers of casual staff and discipline backgrounds: Jacinta Kelly ( Structural Engineering);

Caroline Rannersberger (Linguistics & Fine Art); David Rolfe (Vet Science & Communication)

3. Special projects/activities

Investigating the development of a new focus project for CUC106 – Design and Innovation: There is an opportunity to assist the Dili Institute of Technology (East Timor) in developing a research project that can be used as a focus project for students in 2012. It also helps to encourage collaboration between CDU and DIT.

4. Student numbers

Semester Enrolled Withdrawn % Attrition

2010 SS (E) 56 32 57.1

S1 (IE) 246 88 35.7

S2 (E) 72 32 44

Total 374 152 40.6

5. Student Evaluations (SELTS) Range of scores

S1: 5.88 – 6.45S2: 5.30 – 6.10SS: 5.00 – 6.00

Key issues raised through comment section in support of unit and those not in supportMore Learnline support, or clear guidance on how to access this support. Strengths of the unit included prompt feedback and a well structured course.

How are these being addressed:

Learnline support needs to be aimed at the externals more and this can be achieved by high-lighting links in the Announcements in Week 1.

Attachment A3

Theme Leader Report: CU Management Meeting 2 2011

1. Activities this semester: Website updated includes policy and guidelines, reports, SELTS, stu-

dent testimonials. Need to promulgate

ALTC grant Successo 25,000 distributed $4000/unit, IPAD for each team member (in-

clude Helen, Erin, Barbara, Admin)o Great exercise in identifying strengths, consolidating policies, pro-

cesses and website

CUC107 Presentation for Staffo Small turn out but email invite served to promulgate info as wello Presented to LEBA faculty Exec well receivedo EHS Expect presentation Date cancelled need to make new one –

early new year

Trialling scaffolding literacy approach for CUC100 – measure and res-ults next.

Trialling Wimba, camtasia and other support for externals in CUC100 – good feedback looking at the other units picking these up next year.

Finalisedwritten retention & success report – phew

Unit Review – productive positive sessions , teams good representa-tion from unio CUC107 – Jeswyn (Law); Jen (Psychology); Steve (History); Barbara

(IT); Larissa (ED); Jaimee (Sociology) & Greg (Indigenous); Penny (Environmental Science)

o CUC106 – Nicola (Ed/App Linguistics); Micah (Engineering); Bernie (Libary); Penny (Environmental Science); Dan (Humanitarian); Pas-calle (Pharmacy).

o CUC100 - Nicola (Ed/ App Linguistics);Mal (Psychology); Greg (Ed &IT) Bernie (Library); Bev (Nursing); Liz (Ed & Applied Ling); Danial (Law)

Policy and guidelines – preparing for endorsement at next meeting. Need to re-examine credit transfer guidelines to check that they are still appropriate.Also CT for VET feeder – some discussion at Learning and Teaching Panel perhaps need position paper for Academic board.

Elearning Studio project;o 2 classrooms 50 capacity completely set up – utilised by SAIKS, CU’s, SIET,

Education, Nursing, Scienceo Smaller space awaiting outcomes of a wider learning space project re SAFo Group investigating viability of APADS for teaching instead of laptops.o $56,806.87 left in budget

2. Budget

Just covered our costs but casual spending over by $1,401.00

Budget for 2011 Spending to Nov.Casual salaries $ 260,000.00 $ 261,401.00

(approx)Photocopying/stationary/text/misc.

$ 8,496.00 $ 6,884.17

Catering $ 996.00 $ 1,030.42Total $ 336,242.00 $ 269,315.59Balance as at Nov 2011 $67026.41 for Summer semester salaries

$6828.82

Payment for coordinators discussed at last meetingNo specific allocation in the budget. Would have to reduce casual budget by $15,000 to afford this. Possible formulae based on buy out at repeat tutor rate ($67.91)500 + students 4 hours/week for 12 weeks = $325968500 - students 2 hours/week for 12 weeks = $1629.84Total cost to budget = 21,187.92

3. Consultation for CUC100 for Essington year 11&12 1.5 hrs/wk over 2 years – themes/modules ICT, Communication,

Study skills, Accredited in Jan – will revisit after evaluation Problems with their earning space and student commitment, new

cohorts will be taught in house by Essington.

4. BAT to have discreet group for CUC100 and CUC107 – may adjust CUC100 readings for group.

5. Understanding high drop-out ratesHigh withdrawal rates can be attributed to :

o Students being reminded to withdraw before census dateo Students receiving Credit transfer for the unitso Move from f/t to p/to Withdrawal from Courseo Personal Reasons

Credit transfers 2001 (Area 52)Unit Credit Transfers

2011CUC107 54CUC100 46CUC106 5Total 105

Reasons for Withdrawal Survey S.2 2011 (n= 44)

Q. What was your principle reason for withdrawing from this unit?

Reason CUC100

CUC107

CUC106

Total %

Work commitments 6 4 2 12 27%

Relocation 2 1 1 4 9%Family 1 1 - 2 4.5

%Financial 3 1 - 4 9%Health 1 1 - 2 4.5

%Course withdrawal 2 1 1 4 9%IT Issues 1 - 1 2%Feeling isolated 1 1 2%Timetable issue - 1 - 1 2%Credit transfer 4 1 1 6 14

%f/t-p/t 2 3 - 5 11

%Unit content/presentation 1 1 - 2 4.5

%

Attachment B

A Proposal for Common Unit Monitoring Project 2012

Dr. Bill Tyler (Consultant)

This work will have two separate components: A. Analysis of reporting on trends, patterns and effects of the growth of

external modes of delivery in the Common Units, 1999-2011.B. Updating and maintenance of the ongoing “Part A” data base from

Sem 2 2009 thru to Sem. I, 2011

A. Impact of externalisation of Mode of Study in the Common Units 1999-2011

Background: The spectacular increase in external modes of study over the past decade (at CDU and other innovative and regional universities, presents a number of challenges for the design, delivery and assessment of Common Units).

Although external/internal mode of delivery has been included in all of the Monitoring Project reports to date, this variable has been grouped along with other exogenous predictors of withdrawal and success rates rather than as a variable with unique explanatory position in the causal sequence. This project will therefore treat this externalisation factor as a mediating term its own right, i.e. as being on the one predicted by the student demographic and at the same time predicting academic outcomes (survival and success) within the Common Unit Program and in course retention in later years. In anticipating increases in the demand for these modes of learning we may ask:

1. To what extent is the revision and development of online and flex-ible modes learning within the Common Unit Program associated with improvements in students’ performance and retention?

2. Does mode of delivery affect a student’s performance in the Pro-gram (retention, completion and grade awarded), when the equity factors age, gender, Indigeneity, NESB status, residence, basis of course admission) have been taken into account?

3. Has the growth in numbers of students enrolled in external modes of CU delivery 1999-2009) affected rates for equity group represent-ation in First Year intake (by age, gender, Indigeneity, NESB status, residence, basis of course admission)?

4. Do students who have enrolled in an Academic Skills Common Unit in an external mode have higher chances of course survival, when other factors (e.g. equity) have been taken into account?

B. Updating and Maintenance of ongoing Common Unit Data Base

The retrieval and processing of data base of student records for the periods Semester 2, 2009 through Semester 1, 2011. This data will be merged with the existing “Part A” data base covering the years 1999 through Semester 1, 2011. For background, there will be preliminary descriptive and graphical exploration of trends and patterns in enrolments, student demographic and situational factors, and pass rates. Dr Bill Tyler External Consultant to the Common Unit Monitoring Project Charles Darwin UniversityDate: 2 March, 2012