Charles Darwin University

Common Units Management Group Minutes

Meeting 1/2013: 2pm, Friday 21st June, Community Room, Building Orange 12.1.

Present: Chair: Martin Carroll (MC), Jennifer Silburn (JS), Frances Tolhurst (FT), Birut Zemits (BZ), Barbara Coat (BC), Micah Thorbjornsen (MT), Trent Newman (TN), Elizabeth Thynne (ET), Greg Shaw (GS),Sharon Bridgeman (SB).

Apologies: Nicola Rolls (NR), Giselle Byrnes (GB), Barbara White (BW), Greg Williams (GW), Sue Carthew (SC) Sandra Dunn (SD).

Item Minutes Action Items

1. Welcome from the Chair. The chair opened the meeting, formally welcomed committee members and in particular Birut Zemits as CUC107 coordinator and accepted apologies from Nicola Rolls, Giselle Byrnes, Sue Carthew, Barbara White, Greg Williams and Sandra Dunn.

2. Minutes of Meeting 02-2011 held Thursday 8th October 2011. Subject to the inclusion of the following amendments, members of the committee confirmed the minutes of meeting 2/2012 as a true and correct record:(i) On page 3, Greg Shaw noted as attending the last meeting.(ii) On page 6, item 4.2 the sentence commencing “However, we need to

remember that the current face-to-face model …” to be removed as this is not an accurate record.

(iii) On page 8, item 4.5, the following sentence to be removed “There was no explanation given for this”.

(iv) On page 9, item 4.5 the following sentence to be removed “Other student feedback noted that JH was ‘direct and blunt’ but this could also be attributed to the teaching methodology being different to some students’ expectations.

(v) On page 9, item 4.5, in the following sentence “MC suggested that the SELTS results do warrant further investigation particularly as this is the students’ first exposure to the university”, “is” to be replaced with “can be”.

(vi) On page 12, item 5, “perhaps” to be inserted in the following sentence as indicated “MC noted there was the intention of reviewing the graduate attributes in 2013 and perhaps reducing the number to two”.

(vii) On page 12, item 6, “LSEG” to be replaced with “LSES” (low socio-economic status) the acronym the commonwealth uses and funding schemes are based on.

Matters arising/Action items

Batchelor Institute enrolments in CUC100 – follow up with Terri Dunbar.

1

FT confirmed that discussions have taken place with the BIITE lecturers about the workshop model of delivery that CUC100 has uniquely for students enrolled in all of those programs and delivered at Batchelor or at the desert Peoples Centre.

TN pointed out that there is some cloudiness around this model of delivery and pedagogy that interferes with the coordinator’s ability to understand their role in guiding how the unit is delivered and how much they can say to the teaching staff. TN suggested that it would be helpful if there were an opportunity to attend the workshops, but that it had not been possible to arrange this so far.

MC confirmed that this is a university unit, the university bears ultimate responsibility for the quality of that unit and the way it is delivered. MC reminded the team that in practice, this is a negotiated space. However, the unit coordinator has overall responsibility.

JS pointed out that one of the issues is that it is difficult to contact those staff and get their buy in.

FT pointed out that CUC107 will be taught via this mode next semester as well. BZ advised that CDU students (who are not enrolled in ACIKE) have been enrolling in the BIITE modality.

FT stated that non Indigenous students should not be enrolled in the BIITE modality as they are not eligible to undertake the workshops at Batchelor.

MC stated that the reason for the integration of Batchelor and CDU was to grow the market by moving to a more expensive modality i.e. Learnline facilitated.The workshop model has been discussed across the suite of programs and there are some areas, including the common units, where the university’s position has been to see what happens out of a collegial approach.MC stated that if the situation does not improve and in order to fulfil CDU’s responsibilities, there may be a need, as a last resort, to pull out of that modality.

FT pointed out that GW was invited to the meeting as a representative of ACIKE and he was going to follow up to see which member of staff should attend.

EF confirmed that the BIITE teaching staff were invited to attend the induction workshop but did not respond.

TN to follow up attending BIITE workshop/s

GB to raise issue at the ACIKE Executive Advisory Group (AEAG) chaired by Stephen Larkin

CUC107 – Plagiarism and collusion

FT advised complaints have been received from students this semester and the team were all now following the designated process. In instances where students do plagiarise they are expected to be able to speak to the lecturer (and/or coordinator) and get another chance, this had not been happening.

MC pointed out that at the last meeting there had been some discussion about whether or not to accept draft submissions and there was general agreement that staff in the common units should allow them. Particularly using SafeAssign.

MC advised that for each of the common units the first submitted piece of as-sessment work at least should have a draft entry point prior to the final entry

2

point and that this should be set up in Learnline. The expectation is not that staff will mark students’ draft submissions, but rather that students have access to the text matching report via SafeAssign which they can look at before they submit a final piece of work. In class there should also be an opportunity for the CU team to teach students about the text matching reports and what they mean. To allow for this, lecturers need to add another submission point which the Learnline team can help with.

FT confirmed that students use safe assign to submit in CUC107.

TN confirmed that in CUC100 there is a draft submission point which does not use SafeAssign that allows students submission practice. The final essay is put through SafeAssign. Some students have advised via email that they have not received their report back from SafeAssign and wondered whether to just submit without the report to ensure that they meet the due date.

TN agreed that it is a good model to allow drafts and it also gives students the ability to practice submission for other units but that it is unlikely to solve the pla-giarism problem and it does create some additional work for the lecturer.

JS pointed out that she was recently speaking to a CDU student who had stud-ied some OUA units and had indicated that 3rd year students had been em-ployed to look at draft assignments for a 15 minute period and give feedback. Via this method students receive formative feedback prior to submitting their final assessment. It taught the student a lot in terms of better ways of organising a persuasive essay.

MC noted that the model could be revisited in the future after the outcomes of the PASS project are known.

MC queried whether the evidence suggested that there is more collusion than plagiarism. FT confirmed that there was both collusion and plagiarism within the one semester. For CUC107 it was largely to do with the last assignment where, due to the nature of the assignment (media interpretation), students tended to rely more on reviews and may not have had the necessary skills to complete the assignment on their own.

MC pointed out that when that happens it is usually the university’s fault; in that the assignment is structured in such a way that the cohort need to work together.

GB to meet to discuss research projects that overlap with the retention and success projectBZ queried whether there had been an outcome from this action item. JS pointed out that this action item referred to the first year experience research work that GB and SC have commissioned. The committee agreed that this action item should be carried over to the next meeting.

GB to arrange meeting to discuss research projects.

3. Terms of reference Common Units Committee

3

MC confirmed that the two Faculty Pro Vice-Chancellors have been added and noted the following changes to the incumbency:

5. Associate Dean Learning & Teaching, FEHSE now Barbara White6. Associate Dean Learning & Teaching, FLEBA now Greg Shaw

7. ACIKE representative

MC queried whether there should still be a representative from ACIKE on the committee. Historically the ACIKE representative position was part of the management committee from when one of the units was embedded in SAIKS. However, this is no longer the case. The unit coordinators represent the other units and not individual representatives from schools. However the common units play an important role in terms of students from low SES backgrounds including Indigenous students and it is important to ensure that those voices do not get lost.

FT commented that it would be good to continue to include a representative from ACIKE; as often Indigenous people can be left out of the equation and particularly considering the issues we are talking about with Batchelor.

12. Student representative

MC pointed out that if the PASS scheme gets up and running and one of the foci is the common units then a PASS leader would be ideal. The current policy is to go to the student representative council (SRC) and they appoint from within their elected committee membership. However, this often results in their being no one to attend the committee meetings.

FT advised that the student representative council did advertise this semester but without success.

TN queried whether committee members could approach students who might be interested. MC advised that there is no policy in the university at present indicating that the SRC must be approached if student representation is sought.

MC confirmed that students who are approached by the unit coordinators will be required to submit an expression of interest in the form of a cover letter. They should be sent the TOR and their representation will be recorded on their AHECS.

GS queried whether the current TOR allows the Chair to appoint committee members on a needs basis. MC confirmed that this is commonly used in other committees.

MC proposed that the membership be amended as follows:

12. student representative (internal) appointed by the Chair

13. student representative (external) appointed by the Chair

MC moved that, subject to the amendment noted above, the TOR be recommended to Academic Board for approval. Motion carried.

MC to raise with GB and Steven Larkin and advise that the com-mittee would like to continue to representat-ive from ACIKE ensur-ing a continu-ing focus on retention and success for LSES

Unit Coordinators to approach students regarding representation on CU committee

CU Theme leader to arrange for TOR to be tabled at next academic board meeting.

4

4. Standing items

4.1 Academic Consultant report

4.1.1Overview

FT reported that semester 1 ran smoothly, BZ took on the role of Unit Coordinator for CUC107 at the last minute and has carried that through successfully. The CUC100 team have carried a full student load and been working with various teaching cohorts. The CUC106 team have focused on supporting external students particularly in the group work aspect of the unit.

4.1.2 Budget/Staffing

FT advised that the common units are currently underfunded and there are insufficient funds in the budget to last beyond semester 1. The additional funding required is for unexpected student numbers.

JS advised that the figures quoted are conservative, Jean Mary Robbins came to these figures on a pro rata basis and the figures quoted may be insufficient for the remaining semesters.

MC queried whether JS had submitted a mid-year budget review.

JS advised that she had consulted with MC, GB and Scott Snyder about the budget deficit and the fact that a new funding model is needed as there are insufficient funds each year, despite these units being some of the largest in the university.

MC pointed out that this matter was raised at the last meeting and it was agreed that all of the funding for the common units was to be allocated to SALL and then the teaching would be ‘bought back’ depending on how it was distributed. However, the timing of this decision, at the end of November, was after the budget process had been completed.

JS stated that this year the various schools were apportioned EFTSL according to their teaching loads.

4.1.3 Induction for teaching in the common units

FT confirmed that two half day workshops were run prior to the start of semester 1 for internal common unit staff. Topics included the philosophy of the common units and English language development in them. Two online workshops were run for external lecturers. Both groups discussed moderation and assessments.

MC pointed out that next time it is important to chase up both the BIITE and Essington lecturers.

TN commented that MEGA and Essington were not involved this semester as the teachers had not yet been appointed. However, JS advised that the MEGA lecturer was invited to both the internal and external sessions but did not attend.

MC to raise with GB the need for additional funds for S2 and SS.

JS to discuss redefining budget approach for 2014 with GB.

CU Theme leader to ensure BIITE lecturers attend next induction session where possible.

4.1.4 Preliminary investigation into credit transfer for CUC100 students of tertiary bridging programs.

5

FT was asked by NR to formalise the exemption process of TEP, PTS and Navitas students. The process has begun, but is not yet finalised.

Navitas studentsFT confirmed that Tamarzon Larner, Director of Studies at Navitas believes that Navitas students should study CUC100 rather than being exempt from it as is currently the case. Navitas students receive a lot of support including editing help, even with their last assignment and therefore there is no clear picture about what they can actually do independently when they finish.

FT confirmed that Navitas students have been given exemption at a credit level for some time, this is an informal arrangement made some years ago between the CU Theme Leader and the Director of studies at that time.

MC pointed out that there is a pipeline that needs to be considered and exemptions need to be honoured for current students. However future students can be prevented from being given an exemption.

MC advised that articulations with advanced standing are all approved by the Course Delivery Relationships Oversight Committee (CDROC). Whenever the university has an articulation partner or a third party delivery partner it is overseen by CDROC and their terms of reference include articulations.

FT confirmed that the current Director of Studies does not think that there should be advanced standing. Students receive editorial assistance, before completing their written assignments. They also use the highest grade; if students complete 4 examinations in speaking reading listening and writing the highest grade is recorded on their certificate, which may not be for writing.

GS moved a motion recommending to CDROC that advanced standing and specifically the waiving of the common units for Navitas students cease. Evidence does not show equivalence and thereby support the provision of advanced standing. As the Chair of CDROC, MC abstained from voting.Seconded by JS. Motion carried.

PTSFT confirmed that it has taken a considerable amount of time to discuss PTS with staff and so far, it has not been possible to make a decision about credit transfer for these students. PTS staff decided that students need at least a distinction to achieve equivalence, whereas with TEP there is credit level equivalence and the level of support students receive seem to differ.

MC pointed out that as both TEP and PTS are enabling programs, a progression analysis is needed to compare PTS students with TEP students and look at their progression. This would determine whether, in the subsequent year of university, PTS students complete and pass at equivalent rates to TEP students. If there is equivalence then no change may be needed. However, if the rates are lower then some change may be necessary.

4.1.5 Annual review of CUC107

FT confirmed that an annual review was held for CUC107 and it went well.

FT to provide memo to MC regarding motion for consideration at CDROC.

CU Theme leader to investigate.

6

MC thanked Fran and pointed out that the program had been in good hands while NR was away.

4.3 CUC100 report

TN confirmed that CUC100 is in good shape, TN and EF work well together and there is a good relationship with BC, the library and there is ongoing consultation with the other unit coordinators, who are all working toward additional clarity across the common units.

TN outlined a concern that the unit coordinator’s role involves not only coordinating the internal classes it also includes liaising with variety of other distance teams including MEGA, Essington and also Growing our own and also Batchelor and ACIKE. There is some ambiguity about jurisdiction, students’ needs and the selection of appropriate staff. Communication can also be difficult at times. James and Pauline (MEGA staff in Sydney) have maintained good communication with TN and EF. However, Pauline’s qualifications to teach the unit are questionable and there has had to be some remarking. More permanent staff are needed to share the load and ensure the quality control across these programs.

EF agreed that with the additional iterations of the unit it is difficult to know what is going on and these teams do not always follow through with the agreed approach.

TN confirmed that he would like to see the committee have a policy or identified process for deciding where programs are put. Essington for example, might benefit from CUC106 rather than CUC100.

JS expressed concern about the number of iterations of CUC100 and the danger that they might move away from the core content over time. JS agreed with TN that there is a need for a better process and level of control prior to the commencement of that agreement.

MC confirmed that when there is a third party such as MEGA in Sydney and ATMC in Melbourne, the contracts stipulate that they are the employers. However when teaching CDU units, CDU must approve the staff member teaching on that unit. Approval for MEGA has been limited to Ram Vemuri, however for Melbourne, the CU unit coordinators will get to approve whom ATMC puts up to teach the units. Batchelor differs in that it was a merger of two registered HEPS and the power of veto over whether or not staff could teach or not was waived given that the commonwealth had already accepted that those staff were HE teachers.

MC shared the committees concerns about things going awry and confirmed that the tutors’ role statements will be used for all staff teaching the common units. The Theme Leader must approve all staff teaching into the common units and see the staff member’s CV. The Theme Leader may delegate this task however the responsibility will remain with that position.

Mary Street, Course Delivery Relationships Manager based in Sydney to facilitate introductions between the relevant ATMC staff and the CUC unit coordinators.

MC to send a memo to the

7

JS queried that would happen in an instance where it is evident that the staff member being proposed by one of the other agencies is unsuitable, what authority does the CU Theme leader have to say that this person cannot teach in the unit.

MC confirmed that the Theme Leader has total authority in that situation.

4.3.1 CUC100E Essington

FT tabled a report outlining the key learning and teaching issues affecting CUC100E. These included issues concerning communication, the use of Learnline by Essington staff and the quality of teaching and assessment.

FT advised that the elongation of the unit is problematic but the teachers have indicated that the students benefit from essay writing, research and the kind of assignments they are required to complete. At present the unit loses credibility as there is a need to add activities to extend the content to cover 2 years.

JS pointed out that there appears to be no investment in the unit from Essington. As a result, the unit has suffered and it may be being used merely as a vehicle via which to gain access to the library and other resources. In addition, the students are interested in obtaining the high TER score they need and this is seen as an impediment to them.

BC advised that Essington students do use the library and classes are run specifically for them, which they enjoy. However, their teachers do not have access to the CDU databases.

MC pointed out that Learnline staff can manually add Essington staff members onto Learnline.

MC pointed out that the outstanding issue is what will be delivered, who will deliver it and in what structure. In the existing agreement, it outlines that CDU are obliged to enable students in years 11 and 12 to study CDU units. One option would be to discontinue with the agreement which could cause contractual problems unless it was swapped for something else.

TN and FT agreed that CUC106 might be a more suitable unit for Essington students. TN outlined that CUC106 is a more demanding unit than CUC100 in some respects students would have to do focused research, teamwork and appropriateness to context. Students could either study CUC106 instead of CUC100 or complete CUC100 one year and CUC106 the next.

MC added that it might be possible to register CUC106 for ATAR purposes. However, CUC100 is not closely enough aligned to a particular discipline to facilitate contribution to an ATAR score.

GS pointed out that there is no funding model that goes with the cost.

MC confirmed that students do pay at a reduced rate.

SB queried whether there a way of finding out what the students’ views are about the unit.

TN asked whether or not SELTs could be given to the Essington students in

CU Theme Leader to confirm staffing policy.

BC to raise access issue at next Identity Management meeting.

MC to raise the possibility of Essington staff being appointed honorary academics for the purposes of library access with the Honorary Appointments Procedures Working Group (HAPWG).

SarangPradhan to contact the CU Theme Leader and unit coordinators to outline the necessary requirements that will allow

8

Semester 1, but had not received confirmation back from OLT. MC pointed out that Penny Szybiak is the contact for SELTs and that these are now sent out electronically and therefore students would need to engage with Learnline to have access to SELTs.

MC commented that the Kormilda/Centralian inter university project aims to get students more familiar with Learnline and could also be rolled out with Essington for this one unit. Given that the project is HEPP funded, funding for Essington would need to be obtained from elsewhere.

MC concluded that the status quo is clearly not working either academically or operationally, it is an option to try a different unit such as CUC106, but there might be others. Other options discussed earlier to also be considered as part of conversation with David Canon Essington staff.

MC commended the CUC100 team for their work over the semester.

Essington staff access to Learnline.

TN to contact Penny Szybiak to arrange for SELTs to be made available to Essington students.

CU Theme Leader to convene meeting with MC, JS and David Cannon, Peter Moore and Marley Grossman.

9

4.4 CUC107 report

BZ tabled a short summary report pointing out that there have been very few issues with the unit over the course of the semester. FT has dealt with all of the exemptions for the semester. On page 31, BZ highlighted the differences between semester 1 and semester 2 in 2012 and 2013, noting that retention rates have gone up almost 10%. This semester the team have worked on building up collaborate sessions. Scott Knight who has been an external tutor has run those along with BC.

A review meeting was held and the team considered the SELT data for semester 1 to establish whether the previous problems were related to the unit itself or the way it was delivered. The wording of some of the assignments has been amended which has had a positive outcome given that very few student queries have been received.

GW and John Prior have taught the unit internally, they commented that they have been quite challenged by some of the language demands in the class. BZ confirmed that she will be coordinating the internal classes in semester 2 and will be trying to address them as much as possible.

On page 32 BZ included some notes from the review meeting. The team have responded to some of the summer semester comments by putting up some orientation videos at the beginning, removing the wikis (sometimes students were asked to do 3 per week and these were not assessed).

MC queried the status of the multi-media piece of assessment which had caused some difficulties for students. BZ advised that there hadn’t been too many problems associated with that item of assessment. The description has changed and the criteria have been developed to offer increased transparency and removing the ambiguous design elements. The tutors have adopted a more negotiated approach to the assignment submission, whereby they can work with students to find a way around any problems they might be experiencing.

MC acknowledged that BZ had taken on the unit at short notice, commenting that appears to be working, further that he appreciates BZ patience while a longer term solution for the unit is worked out. JS reiterated MC’s comments and agreed that BZ has done a good job looking after the unit and ironing out some of the difficulties.

10

4.4 CUC106 report

4.4.1 Withdrawal rate analysis

MT reported that overall the unit has gone well this semester with no major incidents. The highlight has been a group of students winning the National EWB competition. This is the first time that CDU have entered a group and will enter that process again this year.

MT included a snapshot of the last 3 semesters noting that there had been a decrease in withdrawal for the last semester down to 39% which was attributed to collaborate sessions run by the external tutor. These sessions gave students the opportunity to engage with the tutor on a regular basis. In addition, some of the assessment to support group work has been adjusted. MT commented that group work and communicating with the tutor have been the two major issues that have come up from previous SELT results and through the withdrawal rate analysis.

When students withdrew the team decided to look at whether or not they had accessed Learnline. A significant proportion of students withdrew within the first 2 weeks and again before census date, there was also a percentage of students who never accessed Learnline at all.

In addition students were sent a survey asking them to give reasons for withdrawal. These included work commitments, dissatisfaction with unit content, withdrawal from the whole course and other. The responses provided under ‘other’ reiterated group work and dissatisfaction with tutor/lecturer contact as key reasons for withdrawal.

Students were also asked to participate in group based weekly journal meetings which made external students meet online. The external tutor, Jacinta confirmed that the Collaborate sessions went well and there was regular attendance and good feedback via email.

The next step is for the team to look at using, UCROO (an academic version of Facebook) which has worked well with other units in the engineering department.

MC pointed out that by the start of 2014 CDU will be rolling out Learnline social, which will be integrated into the Learnline system. Students have their own sites, avatar, and can interact with people in their class. Piloting will commence in semester 1, 2014.

MC commended MT on the analysis of student withdrawal.

TN confirmed that this was the first semester in which external students participated in the competition (at Jacinta’s instigation) and with a great result as they were one of the final three.

JS endorsed TN’s point and confirmed that she was very impressed with the external group; they had obviously worked very well together. MC endorsed the comments made about the students winning the National EWB competition.

JS had asked the external group about their experiences of the unit and they had

MT to discuss Learnline social with Bill Searle.

11

indicated that it was somewhat labour intensive. JS wondered if the level of demand for a first year unit is reasonable and queried whether MT had considered students working in a pair rather than a group to alleviate some of the problems.

MT advised that it might be possible but students would then have increased responsibilities and their capacity to produce a well-rounded report might be reduced.

4.4.2 Project Proposal for Timor-Leste & CDU

MT tabled a proposal in which the key aim was to develop a real world design context in Timor Leste for CUC106 community based projects. This would replace the use of the community contexts and resources provided by Engineers without Borders. MT confirmed that the team had had discussions with Dan Bashira about the possibility of the humanitarian studies students having some involvement with the ‘in country’ placements. In addition, the current project management lecturer, Asma Khan, had also expressed some interest. MT welcomed the committee’s feedback.

The committee commended the team on the proposal and agreed that it was an exciting initiative. However a number of concerns were raised about:

the long term viability of the project;

where the project sits as part of the common units program;

whether the local people of Timor Leste would benefit from the project;

the risks associated with affiliating with a private provider and maintaining ongoing, sometimes complex relationships;

the need for the project to be based in East Timor rather than in a local Indigenous community;

the need for the team to replicate some of the resources EWB currently provides such as the student online forum.

After further discussion about the associated risks, the committee agreed that the project is not suitable for CUC106 particularly given that the unit is about foundational level awareness and skills and not about project implementation.

MC stated that the project would be better suited as a practicum unit in the Masters of Humanitarian and Disaster Management and agreed to help facilitate its development. MC suggested that MT to re-craft the proposal for a higher year in readiness for the next VC innovation grant round.

MT, MC and Janet Sincock to discuss current innovation grant which was awarded to the project.

12

4.6 Library skills

BC reported that things are going well, there are ongoing discussions with all of the coordinators and the library continues to change things in accordance with student requirements.

EF confirmed that as part of their final learning reflection CUC100 students are asked to comment about they think they got out of the unit and invariably they have been positive towards BC and the library team. EF stated that she is grateful for the work BC and her team do on behalf of the common units.

7. Other business

Given that the CU committee only meets twice a year it is often the case that there is only sufficient time to cover the unit reports but not the policies. To address this, MC proposed that the committee meet quarterly. Motion carried.

MC advised that the university has to find ongoing savings from the budget. The VC believes that this can be achieved by pursuing some new revenue generating opportunities, one being greater retention. Key savings can also be made by reducing the number unit offerings. This would then create an opportunity to increase the number of high enrolment common units.

In addition, the university wants to reduce the number of graduate attributes it has, the new attributes could include:

Indigenous cultural safety and awareness;

Environmental sustainability; and

English Language competency.

These new graduate attributes could be embedded in the common units.

MC asked the committee to consider possible topics for the new common unit offerings before the next meeting, pointing out that students might be asked to complete 4 out of 10 units (rather than 2 out of 3), these could be in science or arts, tailored for certain programs and/or capstone units (in employability for example) linked to those at 100 level. Ideally these new common units would be ready for enrolments by the middle of 2014.

BZ queried whether this change meant that the common units would be required to take up what might have been offered in some of those units to be cut.

MC confirmed that this would be the case but it would still be a common unit program, with simple coordination. These new units might have a home in different schools but would still be coordinated through this program.

BC queried whether there any stats which outline the similar topics taught in all of the units?

MC advised that the university does not have that reporting capacity at this stage. There is no database that identifies all of the learning outcomes in the different units.

13

JS queried how this aligns with Alex Barthell’s proposal in which English Language Proficiency is integrated across all curricula.

MC pointed out that in the proposal it was suggested that there could be one/two units in which there are pieces of assessment used to calibrate students English Language proficiency and that could be a common unit/s.

JS suggested that the units could be staggered across the curriculum.

MC requested that in addition to the topics themselves, the new unit suggestions should include a rationale, a description of the learning outcomes and indication of the level. Ideally there would be alignment with what the revised graduate attributes. MC asked the committee to contact him via email with any queries regarding this new proposal.

Committee members to forward details for new common unit offerings to the Chair before the next meeting.

Meeting closed at 4:50 pm

Next meeting to be held in early September

14