Hot topics

Hot Topic - Research Leaders Program, November 2010

Background
The Academic Board received a presentation from Dr Maree Gladwin, Director of Staff Research Development in the Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) on the research leaders program. The program supports the ongoing career development of academic researchers and has a strong focus on cross faculty and discipline involvement.

Deakin University Developing Research Leaders Program PowerPoint Presentation (1.08MB)

Professor Joe Graffam
Chair, Academic Board
November 2010

Hot Topic - Academics and the University Budget, June 2010

Background
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Mr Andrew Walters provided an outline of the three key elements necessary for working effectively with the Budget process:

  1. the need to understand budget process
  2. the need to use the heightened understanding appropriately 
  3. the need to use the understanding for the good of the greater University.

Expanding on these points the CFO noted that there was a need for managers to better understand what they can and cannot do with funds as understanding about processes appears to be lacking. He urged those present to access the accountants in his division for assistance when necessary as a basic level of understanding is essential.

On point two the CFO explained the need to use the knowledge of the budget processes appropriately. Using the example of a recent efficiency audit he reported that in the eight months since its commencement no efficiency had been detailed. Board members were urged to examine how they currently manage and how they might manage resources better. He cited the need to break away from the concept of what is ‘always done’ and think more laterally. The CFO also reminded the Board that with increased flexibility in the budget process comes increased responsibility.

Finally the CFO addressed the issue of managing budget processes for the greater good of the University. He noted that in challenging times such as those that face the University we all need to operate for the greater good. This may include Faculties sharing wealth where appropriate. It was noted that the University surplus that has resulted from careful stewardship is necessary for the funding of capital works from which everyone benefits.

The Board was urged to use money responsibly and wisely for the University particularly in post Bradley 2012 when considering growth parameters carefully becomes important.

In conclusion the CFO advised Board members to talk about these issues at School level to help develop ‘knowledge’.


Academic Board Discussion
The discussion covered general matters such as the usefulness of an activity based costing exercise similar to those conducted at Newcastle and Wollongong.

The distribution of the RAM to Faculties and Schools was discussed as well as the issue of “carry forward” and compliance around this matter clarified. It was noted that research income (external only) can be carried forward as a result of support from the University Council. Likewise it was noted that contracts for consultancies and the like should include objectives that allow ‘carry forwards’ and that the University Solicitor be involved in the establishment of multi-year contracts that would facilitate carry forward of unspent funds.

Outcome
It was agreed that robust discussions are needed at Faculty level to ensure Schools are correctly funded. It was also agreed that the April budget process with the CFO had improved transparency and finally that the need to understand the budget process was imperative to responsible management that benefits the whole University.

Professor Joe Graffam
Chair, Academic Board
June 2010

 

Hot Topic One - University Library Priorities, November 2009

Background
Anne Horn, University Librarian, gave a presentation regarding the priorities of the Library. She began by noting a key challenge identified by the Review Panel in the 2008 Review of the Library, namely: "The University's Strategic Plan poses a number of challenges for the Library, particularly in supporting and contributing to an improvement of Deakin's research performance while at the same time increasing the flexibility of its already highly-regarded support for teaching and learning". In considering the Library's priorities for the next 3 years to 2012, we need to recognise that, within the context of the rapidly changing information landscape , 3 years is a long time.

In terms of meeting the needs of students, pilot research carried out by the Library reveals that students seek information resources in different ways for different purposes (an essay, a presentation, a job interview), and the library needs to respond to this in the ways it makes information available.  Over the past ten years emphasis within library collections and access has shifted away from paper based resources to electronic resources, a trend that will continue into the future.

The presentation identified seven different challenges posed by the information environment:

  • continuing expansion of publishers' title lists (especially e-journals), in part as a response to research assessment exercises
  • market intolerance of current leading publishers’ distribution and cost models, leading to alternative avenues being sought for disseminating research outputs (Societies, Governments, Universities)
  • open access models, institutional research repositories
  • new applications and web services to improve discovery of information - many competing products being released
  • e-books, with rapid take up next 18 months, both online and through devices such as Kindle
  • management of on-site and off-site collections, and collaborative partnerships
  • developing physical and virtual learning environments in parallel, ensuring accessibility for different student cohorts and research teams.

Anne Horn concluded her presentation by noting that libraries have always been places to study, learn and meet friends and colleagues.  Libraries have improved in the way they design physical and virtual spaces, informed by the needs of students and staff, and working in close partnership with them. It is these partnerships continue to be critical to the Library's success.

Academic Board Discussion
Discussion first explored the uptake of Deakin Research Online in relation to the size of the DRO team and it was explained that, with a team of six, DRO currently contained over 14,000 items and that this placed Deakin at number 6 in terms of different universities. The challenge of the enormous variation in publishers' terms for permission to use material on DRO was noted.

The success of the library in providing easy access for students to a wider range of texts and journals was commended, and discussion explored the implications of Kindle and various other e-book devices. Important issues of affordability, licensing and downloading arrangements were noted as challenges to future developments. The library is currently investigating how best to package material for students and is evaluating 3 different e-book devices for possible use.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked the University Librarian for her presentation and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board
November 2009

Hot Topic Two - Current Challenges In Business Education, November 2009

Background
Professor Gael McDonald, Dean, Faculty of Business and Law, gave a presentation entitled 'Current Challenges in Business Education'.

Professor McDonald first gave a brief overview of the scale of the teaching operations of the Faculty of Business and Law, followed by an analysis of ten challenges facing business education and their implications for Deakin:

  • changes in policy
  • an openly competitive marketplace
  • changing economic factors
  • international students
  • international accreditation
  • assurance of learning
  • employer expectations
  • changes in student profiles
  • technology changes
  • staff attrition, attraction, and retention.

The change in policy that Professor McDonald explored as being of particular significance is the target of 40% of 25 - 34 year olds having a tertiary qualification by 2025, and extending this to those from lower socio-economic areas who would previously have not traditionally participated in tertiary education. Here she identified two particular implications in terms of meeting the challenge: the need to remove the confusion between low socioeconomic status and low performance, and the need to develop strategies to encourage greater participation, while addressing practical and academic issues.

In terms of the introduction by 2012 of a fully student driven funding model, Professor McDonald used to experience of New Zealand to distinguish between three different types of situation regarding individual courses. Those that represent niche programs, occupy a relatively safe position as market share does not alter dramatically. Course that are oligopolistic, with a few providers of a similar but specialised program become more vulnerable. Finally generic programs with multiple providers are highly vulnerable. Deakin's Bachelor of Commerce, which currently accounts for 20% of total EFTSL at Deakin falls into this last category. A solution to this challenge can be sought through a combination of the right programs with an exceptional level of service with a personal or tailored feel.

Professor McDonald's presentation concluded by exploring the overall implications of the challenges she had analysed. She identified six different elements in the response required, noting that Deakin is already well advanced in many of these areas:

  • Flexibility in terms of programs offered;
  • Considered use of technology;
  • Use of different types of pedagogies and modes of delivery;
  • Courses that are truly relevant and contemporary;
  • Significant interaction with business partners;
  • Research that makes a difference, in terms of informing teaching, and informing the operations of industry partners.

Academic Board Discussion
Questions focused on exploring the nature of the industries in which the challenge of personalising delivery had been successfully met.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Professor MacDonald for her comprehensive presentation and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board
November 2009

Hot topic: Academic freedom, academic integrity - October 2009

Background
Guest presenter Professor Jim Jackson, Chair, Academic Board, Southern Cross University provided insights from his PhD thesis into academic freedom commencing with an historical background, cited examples from case law and noted academic freedom is necessary for art and science and disseminating new knowledge within the Socratic ideal.

Presentation
The following key points emerged from the presentation:

  • academic freedom is fundamental to universities
  • academic freedom and freedom of speech are not synonymous
  • universities have a legal obligation to develop conditions that enable them to meet statutory requirements
  • staff should be protected from arbitrary attack
  • academic freedom could/should be incorporated into university documents such as policies and procedures, dismissal processes, enterprise agreements, and employment contracts. Such policies must be reasonable and equitable, consistent with each other and established by usual practice and past court decisions
  • academic freedom is not an unrestricted license for staff to say whatever they want or break the law. The term 'professionalism' implies 'wisdom of usage' and does not imply that staff has the freedom to defame the university or other people or organisations
  • staff claiming academic freedom has an obligation to back their claims with solid data and to act professionally.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Professor Jackson for his presentation and the participation of members in the ensuing discussion of a number of the points that were raised as part of the presentation.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board
October 2009

Hot Topic - Student Engagement, September 2009

Background
Professor Marcia Devlin, Chair in Higher Education Research at Deakin & Professor Sally Kift, ALTC Senior Fellow, QUT presented on student engagement, each echoing similar findings that successful student engagement is linked to retention. Professor Kift emphasised the crucial importance of engagement with first year students.

Professor Marcia Devlin noted that the Federal Government's document in response to the Bradley Report includes a section on student engagement. Under the heading 'Better Student Engagement', it mentions:

  • 'student satisfaction';
  • 'teaching and learning experience indicators';
  • 'drop-out rates'; and
  • 'the rise in student-to-staff ratios' (p 14).

Professor Devlin cited the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) definition of student engagement as 'students' involvement with activities and conditions likely to generate high-quality learning. The concept is based on the assumption that student learning is influenced by how students participate in educationally purposeful activities while at university'. Similarly, she noted that the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) focuses on student activities and institutional conditions.

Professor Devlin said this focus on student engagement presents both challenges and opportunities for Deakin. She suggested the challenges included:

  • range of understandings of student engagement among staff
  • varying levels of interest in student engagement among staff
  • crowded agendas and high workloads for staff and leaders
  • perceptions of validity and reliability of the AUSSE
  • change leadership.

 Meanwhile, the opportunities include an increasing amount of research into student engagement and a measured improvement in student performance.

Professor Sally Kift argued that successful first year engagement can be significant in arresting attrition with its consequent financial implications. She noted that the attrition rate of first year students nationally is 22-23%, double that of those in their second year (2006 figures). Although Deakin's first year loss is 18.57%, the AUSSE gives cause for concern with a finding that 45% of Deakin first year students in 2008 had seriously considered leaving compared with 34% in Deakin's benchmark group.

Professor Kift emphasised the importance of a 'transition pedagogy' requiring a whole of university approach across programs, disciplines and services. She suggested that such an approach was also key to engagement generally. Citing Scott (2006) Professor Kift said that 'students' total experience of university - not just what happens in the traditional classroom - shapes their judgements of quality, promotes retention and engages them in productive learning' .

The presentation noted common first year curriculum complaints including lack of clarity and consistency regarding expectations; concerns about assessment and feedback; and lack of preparedness for university. Given the importance of encouraging low SES student participation, Professor Kift reminded the Academic Board that students from a disadvantaged background have a likelihood of succeeding at university similar to that of the population as a whole but they often require higher levels of support to succeed.

Academic Board Discussion
Questions focused on Deakin's major issues for first year engagement; acceptable attrition rates; the importance of socialisation at university and whether there should be an emphasis on generic first year issues. Professor Kift suggested that the focus on skills development and assessment should be discipline specific and contextualised in curricula.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked the presenters and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board
September 2009

Hot Topic - Accelerating Research at Deakin, July 2009

Background
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Professor Lee Astheimer provided an outline of her vision for Research at Deakin University and strategies that may be employed to further improve research performance. Professor Astheimer provided an overview of the external context, including elements of the Bradley and Cutler Reviews and the 2009 Federal Government Budget.

Her initial observations of the current internal environment include:

  • there is a high level of research activity in selected sectors within Deakin, but also a need for greater organisational clarity
  • a need to create a greater alignment between teaching and research
  • many experienced researchers also carry a high administrative load
  • preponderance on applications for category 1 grants and increasing the number of applications, which leads to lower success rate.
  • researchers have embraced the need to improve Deakin's performance.

Academic Board Discussion
The following themes were examined from the presentation and ensuing discussion:

  • Deakin's research performance when benchmarked with the 13th ranked university, still requires improvements although HDR completions are improving.
  • the need to focus on the quality of grants (not only category A, but also industry and other national grants) and high ranked publications to improve track records and profile of researchers
  • fierce competition nationally and internationally will continue
  • focused leadership - to provide direction, critical targets, big(ger) ideas, noting the grant application amounts had been relatively less than others
  • recruitment - to build capacity, reputation, credibility, support new recruits including ECRs
  • collaboration - create synergies, new ideas; improve track record and access to larger grants and bigger projects
  • a new research funding model, which will support various platforms:
    • targeted support to research strengths (University strategic research groups and faculty research clusters system)
    • more scholarships for domestic and international HDR students
    • recruitment for fellowships and leadership
    • improved central research support systems
    • a culture of Research Excellence.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Professor Astheimer for her presentation and the participation of members in the discussion.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board
July 2009

Hot Topic - Academic Standards, June 2009

Background
Recent announcements in regard to the Higher Education sector, which were incorporated in the Review of Higher Education Report (the Bradley Review) and endorsed by the decisions included in the 2009 Federal Budget, have raised awareness of issues relating to academic standards. In recognition of this renewed focus on academic standards and the requirements of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) cycle 2 audits to:

'seek evidence of setting, maintaining and reviewing institutional academic standards and outcomes, together with evidence of the institution's comparative national and international performance' (Academic Standards in Australian Higher Education 24/12/08, AUQA)

the hot topic addressed the issue of academic standards.

The Executive Director, AUQA, Dr David Woodhouse and Professor Chris Gray, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Science and Technology gave individual presentations to the Board. Dr Woodhouse focussed on matters relating to AUQA considerations. Professor Gray's presentation was supported by an agenda paper outlining key matters that could be used as a starting point for discussions about academic standards in a broader sense.

Academic Board Discussion
Members of the Board were deeply engaged with the presentations and the ensuing extensive discussion included the following points:

  • academic standards are a key focus of the AUQA cycle 2 audit
  • AUQA has suggested that in order to achieve external calibration of their achievements in relation to standards, institutions should benchmark with selected partners, nationally and internationally
  • academic standards apply to all aspects of the academic process, inputs and outcomes
  • academic standards may be regarded as explicit levels of academic attainment which include the following aspects: discipline specific, generic, graduate attributes
  • the means available for ensuring academic standards for students who receive credit for prior learning at other institutions
  • the role of professional accreditation bodies and possible use of external moderation or examiners
  • an Advisory Group to AUQA has proposed a sector-wide process for creating the necessary systems for assessing and reporting academic standards. This is closely aligned to recommendation 23 of the Bradley Report
  • a national accreditation body will need to have systems which work within state jurisdictions
  • AUQA will continue to operate in the foreseeable future and will have a strengthened role within the new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
  • the role of existing working groups and debate across the academic community to ensure the University continues to develop its processes for determining, assessing and reporting academic standards.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked the presenters and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
June 2009

Hot Topic One - Institute of Teaching and Learning, May 2009

Background
Professor Colin Mason, Director, Institute of Teaching and Learning (ITL) presented on the topic "The Institute of Teaching and Learning - New Directions" to highlight the role of the Institute as part of the academic community within Faculties and Schools.

He raised the following academic issues as part of his overview of matters that may impact on the role of the Institute:

  • models and adequacy of measurement in regard to outcomes
  • the importance of recognising context
  • the existence of false dichotomies such as teaching, learning and research
  • models of scholarship.

It was noted that the Institute's new directions would include:

  • improved engagement and consultation with Faculties and Schools
  • using a more interactive model that had both centralised and decentralised approaches and roles.

Professor Mason posed a number of questions which members were asked to consider:

  1. Where does Academic Board see its role in setting the Teaching and Learning agenda for the University?
  2. The role of Associate Deans (Teaching and Learning) in relation to the Academic Board?
  3. How to balance the need to improve research but not at the expense of teaching?
  4. How do we reduce the incidence of following rules and regulations without first considering the greater purpose of the activity?

This initial presentation was followed by a presentation given by Associate Professor Malcolm Campbell on behalf of the Associate Deans (Teaching and Learning) (ADTLs) from each of the four Faculties to explain the changing nature of the role of ADTLs, including their interaction with other services within and external to Deakin University.

The importance of strong links between the roles of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the ITL and the ADTLs was emphasised. Their main roles and responsibilities were described which were to develop initiatives that advanced T&L by way of engaging with the literature and addressing broader scholarship issues. Issues that required further work and clarification included:

  • the relationship between ADTLs and the Heads of Schools
  • the impact of the Bradley Review
  • teaching and scholarship as pathways to promotion
  • the need for information/actions/debate to flow to and from the Academic Board
  • better definition of the university-wide picture on policy development
  • establishing valid forms of assessment
  • identifying the bigger picture issues.

Academic Board Discussion
Discussion highlighted the need for teaching and research agendas to be more closely aligned and for the Professoriate within Schools and Faculties to take a more active and leadership role in fostering the teaching - research nexus.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked the presenters and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions. The Chair also undertook to discuss the above issues with the Teaching and Learning Committee.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board
May 2009

Hot Topic Two - Quality Improvement and AUQA, May 2009

Background
The Director, Quality Improvement Heather Sainsbury presented on the topic "The Changing Face of Quality Assurance in Higher Education". Ms Sainsbury described the changing directions of quality assurance in higher education over the last few years both in Australia and internationally. She detailed examples from Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

1. Europe: the Lisbon Strategy: aims is to make the European Union (EU) "the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy". A critical element is the improvement of education and training, and this drives policy and funding decisions of EU States.

2. United Kingdom: For over 10 years, the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has worked on setting structures and procedures ("academic infrastructure") to ensure standards. These include:

  • code of practice for assurance of academic quality and standards - covering for example, assessment, flexible learning, external examining, student appeals and complaints, course design and review, work-based learning, admission
  • frameworks for higher education qualifications
  • subject benchmark statement - which define what can be expected of a graduate in a given discipline in terms of the abilities and skills needed to develop competence in the area.
  • program specifications - concise description of the intended outcomes of learning from a higher education program and the means by which these outcomes are achieved and demonstrated.

Also related to the QAA's "academic infrastructure" is the External Examiner System.  External examiners are asked to report on:

  1. whether the academic standards set for awards are appropriate
  2. the extent to which assessment processes are rigorous, equitable and fairly conducted
  3. the standards of student performance in the programmes
  4. the comparability of the standards and student achievements with those in some other higher education institutions
  5. good practice they have identified
3. United States: The Spellings Commission (2006) examined the role and performance of higher education in the US. Recommendations included: increasing the number of people who complete college; the need to find better ways of measuring how much students learn; and of sharing that and other information about colleges' performance with the public.

Ms Sainsbury described the differences between AUQA 1 and the pending AUQA 2 and the likely impact of the Bradley Review.  In addition, she discussed the implications of these changes for Deakin. Main points raised included a need to continue to implement and strengthen quality assurance and improvement processes with particular emphasis on the following:

  • Planning and review cycle
  • Faculty, Institute and Other Area reviews
  • Course development and review processes
  • Assessment policies and processes
  • Increased focus on ensuring standards
  • Increased focus on benchmarking.

Academic Board Discussion
The Academic Board discussed the steps being taken (or planned) to enable these matters to be satisfactorily addressed and also noted the publication of the recent AUQA discussion paper on academic standards.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked the presenters and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions.  The Chair also reiterated that in her role as a member of the Continuous Quality Improvement Subcommittee the issues above will be fully explored.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair, Academic Board.
May 2009

Hot Topic - Grantsmanship, March 2009

Background
As part of the University's drive to develop its culture of research and expand its success in obtaining competitive grant monies, a number of strategies have been developed to raise the profile of research related activities across the University. Three members of the professoriate who have had success in obtaining Australian Research Council (ARC) or National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants gave presentations that outlined strategies that could be used to help achieve success with grant applications.

Academic Board Discussion
Discussion of the hot topic was centred on the question: 'What are some of the most successful strategies used in grantsmanship?' Formal presentations were given by:

  • Professor Frank Stagnitti, Faculty of Science and Technology
  • Alfred Deakin Professor David Crawford, Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences
  • Professor Julie Wolfram-Cox, Faculty of Business and Law.
Each presenter approached the question in a different manner, drawing on their own experiences and knowledge, but common academic and procedural issues were identified and discussed. These included:
  • the importance of a scholarly research culture
  • the importance of planning and persistence when submitting applications
  • accessing multiple funding agencies
  • strong applications will address the criteria at a level of excellence associated with the different types of grants. Various funding bodies may place a different emphasis on matters such as: cutting edge research, track record of applicants at international and national level, conceptual underpinnings, methodological rigour, supervision of students and needs and priorities of the funding organisation
  • the importance of track records and seeking support from colleagues who have been successful in obtaining funding.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked the presenters and members of the Board for their participation in the discussions.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
March 2009

Hot Topic - Deakin Research Online and the ERA requirements, February 2009

ERA submissions
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Professor Stokes presented a summary of the requirements that Deakin must meet as a part of the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) program. Deakin University is required to submit two clusters for ERA assessment:

  • cluster 1 Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences: Codes 02, 03 and 04
  • cluster 2 Humanities and Creative Arts: Codes 12 on Built environment and design and Codes 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

Both submissions will be made in early 2009. Professor David Stokes outlined the required information for each cluster. They include:

  • Background statement for each two digit FOR code
  • Research output data (2002 to 2007)
  • Esteem measures (2005 to 2007)
  • Research income (2005 to 2007)
  • Applied measures (2005 to 2007)

The background statement covers research income and measures of application (e.g. patents, registered designs), research output and esteem measures (which are tightly defined). The research outputs will be based on ERA journal rankings devised by the ARC. Professor Stokes emphasised that these rankings are not yet final, but should be within weeks. For Cluster 1,
50 ranked journals will be used for citation analysis. For Cluster 2, peer review and a descriptive statement about research output and significance will be used (at least 20 outputs at 4 digit FOR code, with 20% of these to be peer reviewed). The ARC announced on 20/2/09 that Scopus would provide citation data for the ARC.

Deakin Research Online
The University Librarian, Ms Anne Horn provided an overview of Deakin Research Online (DR0) and its confluence with the ERA. The DRO is an open access institutional research repository for Deakin University to provide information required by the ERA process. The repository is expected to be scholarly, cumulative and perpetual, and open. This is important to meet Deakin’s obligation to the policy that Government-funded research is publicly accessible. DRO plays an important role in promoting Deakin’s research, and raising the profile of individual researchers, both internally and externally. DRO is well advanced for Clusters 1 and 2, but there remain challenges for Cluster 2 because of the varied types of research outputs that can be considered. 

Academic Board discussion
The Board discussed the implications of the submission requirements, in particular, Cluster 2 in relation to creative arts. The Board welcomes the opportunity to share the information regarding the DRO and agrees that it is a major step forward to profile the University’s research performance and provide open access to national and international researchers, whilst promoting research partnerships.

Outcome
The Chair of the Academic Board thanked the presenters, Professor David Stokes, Ms Anne Horn, the scribe Professor Gerry Quinn and Board members for their contributions to the hot topic discussion.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
February 2009

Hot Topic - Research related Reviews, November 2008

Background
Professor David Stokes, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) was invited to present an academic overview of recent reviews that had examined the future directions of research at universities. Two major reviews were summarised as discussion papers:

  • 'Venturousaustralia': Building Strength in Innovation (the Cutler Review)
  • Collaborating to a Purpose: Review of the Cooperative Research Centres Program
    (the O'Kane Review).

Academic Board Discussion
Following the presentation, the following academic matters were discussed:

  • the environmental context of the Reviews' deliberations
  • areas of priority
  • the role of the Institutes at Deakin
  • areas of emerging strengths.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Professor Stokes for his presentation and the participation of members in the ensuing discussion.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
November 2008

Hot topic - The Scholarship of Teaching, September 2008

Background
Deakin University has set itself an ambitious goal of becoming a national leader in teaching and learning. To further this agenda the Chair in Higher Education Research, Professor Devlin presented to the Academic Board a discussion paper, The Scholarship of Teaching @ Deakin University, which explored the development of a culture of scholarship and research in the University to inform pedagogical practice.

Professor Devlin argued that there is a close and symbiotic relationship between the scholarship of teaching and learning and research into teaching and learning/higher education. The relationship is represented as a two-way continuum from reflecting on and thinking about teaching, talking about and observing teaching, documenting and sharing reflections and observations, designing and undertaking investigations, gathering and analysing/interpreting evidence to presenting, writing about and publishing findings of reflections and investigations.

Engagement in the Scholarship of Teaching can advance faculty, school and individual teaching practice, enhance student learning and the Deakin student experience, further the institution's aims and contribute to research outcomes.

Academic Board discussion
Professors Rees (Head, School of Law), Polonsky (Chair in Marketing) and Mayer (Head, School of Education) presented formal responses to the paper. Set out below is a summary of the academic issues and matters raised by the Academic Board in relation to 'The Scholarship of Teaching':

  • The concept of 'Scholarship of Teaching' requires definition as some debate exists as to the differences between Scholarship of Teaching and Scholarly Teaching. There is a need to clearly define the distinction between the two.
  • Engaging in the Scholarship of Teaching needs to be designed as a research activity from the outset, and must include a means of measuring the outputs from the activity.
  • Scholarship of Teaching can and will contribute to research and improve publication outputs. It should not however, be only about increasing research output but should also contribute to changing teaching practice and improving the learning experience for students.
  • The process of how we go about the Scholarship of Teaching is important to advancing new knowledge in teaching and learning. We should also identify what content forms its central focus, which should not just be linked to disciplinary development.
  • Scholarship of Teaching is knowledge building and involves people at both an individual and community level, and encourages recognition for high quality teaching. It is the means of changing practice and linking with strategic goals, for example, rural and regional engagement and partnerships.
  • There is a need to explore ways to mobilise partners in Scholarship of Teaching that extends to clinical practice education. Scholarly teaching and research into teaching in the clinical environment could facilitate different approaches to quality teaching and provide research based evidence that supports exciting and cost effective ways of teaching, such as role play and simulations.

Outcome
The Chair of the Academic Board thanked the speakers and Board members for their input and summarised the academic issues and matters raised, including the need to define Scholarship of Teaching, the means to utilise partnerships effectively, designing relevant research in teaching from the beginning of the scholarly endeavours and identifying resources needed for the Scholarship of Teaching to occur.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
September 2008

Hot Topic - Faculty of Science and Education: Challenges and Strategies, August 2008

Background
The dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology, Professor Brian McGaw was invited to present an academic overview of the Faculty and its future directions. Professor McGaw gave an insight to various academic matters in relation to his chosen focus, entitled ‘The State of the Faculty: Challenges and Strategies’.

The presentation covered six key subtopics:

  • student numbers
  • the student experience
  • research
  • finance
  • general issues
  • the vision for the faculty.

Academic Board Discussion
Following the presentation, the following academic matters were discussed:

  • co-operation between the faculties of Science and Technology; Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences; and Arts and Education and Business and Law through the Alfred Deakin Institute to develop partnerships in relation to the creation and delivery of new and existing courses and research initiatives
  • the possibility of the creation of a new research focussed institute and centre to minimise the complexity of the current structures where there are colleges, institutes and clusters and faculty research centres.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Professor McGaw for his presentation and the participation of members in the discussion.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
August 2008

Review of Australian Higher Education Discussion Paper - An academic perspective, July 2008

Background
The Australian Government announced earlier this year that it would conduct a major review of Australia's higher education system, chaired by Emeritus Professor Denise Bradley. A discussion paper titled the 'Review of Australian Higher Education' was released on 10 June 2008.

Academic Board Discussion
The Chair of the Academic Board, Professor Leung developed a summary of the Discussion Paper for consideration by the Board and invited all members to contribute to discussion of the paper.

Following an introduction to the topic by the Chair, members of the Academic Board made the following key points:

  • A more outward and forward looking approach should be adopted in recognising the functions and characteristics of the Australian Higher Education sector.
  • The higher education sector needs to provide opportunities for institutions to build on diversity and relative strengths where possible.
  • Australia's higher education system must be viewed in terms of its participation in the global education space to facilitate innovation and engender ongoing successes within both local and global communities.
  • It is important to recognise that universities have different characteristics and mixes of research in their portfolios and this should be taken into consideration to arrive at a fair allocation of resources to support that research.
  • The necessary nexus between teaching and research should negate any move towards 'teaching only' universities. 'Engaged research' and 'engaged teaching' have direct links with partners and the community, which facilitates knowledge transfer and commercialisation.
  • Funding by the government for courses could be extended to include support for specific employment based education and training undertaken at universities (including short courses), similar to the system that currently operates in the United Kingdom. This would assist universities to directly address the needs of the labour market and industry.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked members of the Board for their input, which will help inform Deakin's response to the Discussion Paper.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
July 2008

University Budget - An academic perspective, June 2008

Background
The University Budget plays a key role in the operations of the University. The professoriate appreciates the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the budgetary decision making process and how teaching and research matters are taken into consideration.

Academic Board Discussion
The Chief Financial Officer of the University, Mr Andrew Walters gave a presentation to the Academic Board regarding his view of the academic perspective to the Budget. Alfred Deakin Professor Julian Mercer, School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Professor Joe Graffam, School of Psychology provided formal responses to the presentation.

Following these presentations, members of the Academic Board engaged in further discussion of the topic. A summary of the key discussion points in relation to academic matters are:

  • The importance of the budget process for the whole University, including the support of academic goals outlined in the Strategic Plan 2008-2012.
  • A need to understand the key issues and factors that influence the budgetary process and various models including the rationale to arrive at a flexible and dynamic budgetary model which accommodates key objectives of the University. The model should allow for the allocation of resources in the right direction and at the right time.
  • The importance of the budget allocation process and a discussion of the variables involved in that process, which influence research and teaching outcomes.
  • The possibility of the Academic Board having input in the modelling and budgetary process. Matters such as research ratios or loads may be considered.
  • The key factors that may affect the budgetary process are staff numbers, research expenditure, HDR loads and the Student:Staff ratio. The model should be flexible to allow changes in these factors to be considered.
  • There is the need to find the right balance between centralisation and localisation of process – how much of the budgetary process is centralised depends on the level of confidence in control mechanisms, the volatility of the budget, and opportunities for input.
  • Through their membership of the Planning and Resources Committee, faculty deans have an important role to play in budgetary decisions which affect academic issues.
  • The optimisation of the division of funding between Teaching and Research and support areas.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Mr Walters and members of the Board for the presentations and discussions.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
June 2008

Academic Leadership, May 2008

Background
The Academic Board, which includes the whole professoriate, has a crucial role to play in academic leadership. The professoriate is the key engine for leading the academic community to achieve quality and excellence in academic matters. While deans, heads of schools and discipline heads have a clearly identified role, professors across the University can also influence outcomes in learning, teaching and research. This leadership can be provided by the professoriate undertaking a broader role within the University.

Academic Board discussion
A discussion paper on academic leadership prepared by the Chair and Deputy Chair was considered by the Academic Board. Professors Kate Smith-Miles, Head of School, Engineering and Information Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology; Peter Hodgson, Federation Fellow, Institute for Technology, Research and Innovation and Sing Kai Lo, Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences presented formal responses to the question: 'How can members of Academic Board provide academic leadership within Deakin?'.

A summary of the key matters raised in the paper and the ensuing discussion is set out below:

  • The experience and knowledge of the professoriate enables them to undertake a leadership role beyond that of an academic authority in their chosen field.
  • Professors should be drivers of change but also sensitive to change in terms of "Big Picture" thinking. Vision, sensitivity and understanding of contexts are necessary.
  • The professoriate plays a key role in identifying, developing, encouraging and supporting (growing our own) future academic leaders; this may have impact on academic appointments and mentoring.
  • The role of mentoring and PPR supervision by the same professor may give rise to possible conflicts between the roles.
  • A Professors' Forum has been established in one Faculty to foster academic leadership and share ideas. Further development of such forums across the University will enhance academic discussions of a strategic nature.
  • The environment at Deakin is currently undergoing a change, providing exciting opportunities for leadership development and action. Workload responsibilities need to take these aspects into account. Empowerment may involve a cultural change to cultivate trust and innovative behaviours.
  • Leadership needs to take account of an institution's vision and purpose, which is becoming an increasingly complex matter. A mix of teaching and research talents are required.
  • Leadership is shown by individuals or groups of individuals but it should be felt and experienced by the people around the leader.
  • Academic excellence is calibrated through teaching and research. Recognition from external sources through key membership of, and engagement with, outside agencies is important. Leaders should have an impact both internally and externally.
  • Early recognition and nurturing of future leaders is vital if they are to achieve their potential.
  • Involvement in the setting of the academic agenda by members of the professoriate will greatly enhance empowerment and engagement with academic matters.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board reiterated the significant role professors play as an individual leader of their discipline, and collectively as part of the Academic Board to move the agenda in academic quality in teaching and research. She thanked the speakers for their presentations and members of the Board for their questions and discussion.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
May 2008

The Workplace Productivity Program, March 2008

Background
In Round Two of the Workplace Productivity Program Deakin University was successful in gaining funding from the former Department of Science Education and Training to ‘Improve productivity through transformational workplace reform’. Funding for the project commenced in January 2008 and will last for three years. At its second meeting held on 11 March 2008 the Academic Board considered a report on the project by Wendy Cooper, Director Human Resources Services.

The report highlighted the project's contribution to the ‘People, Culture and Change’ section of the new Strategic Plan, the goal of which is a workplace culture that fosters and supports excellence in teaching, research and related services. The project therefore aims at a more effective use of Deakin's staffing resources through activities under four broad headings:

  1. Reform of HR Practices
  2. Optimising Organisational Structures and Staffing Policies
  3. Improving Organisational Performance
  4. Reforming the Organisational Culture

A summary was provided of activities to date and planned activities under these headings and in extra forums.

Academic Board Discussion
The Academic Board heard presentations from Professor Mike Kidd, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, and Professor John Rodwell, Deakin Business School. Following these presentations, members of the Academic Board engaged in further discussion of the topic. A summary of some of the key observations and matters raised is:

  • The importance of linking reward to performance of staff.
  • The need for commitment and engagement in workplace culture.
  • The need for great care and some flexibility in defining productivity, given the potential for less collegiality and calculating mediocrity if incorrect forms of measurement are applied rigidly.
  • The importance of the PPR process in workplace cultural reform.
  • The possibility of greater flexibility being offered to Heads of School in the setting of goals, according to more individually tailored research, teaching, service, leadership goals.
  • The need for configurations within the workplace that align with, and are part of, the strategic intent behind reforms.
  • The central importance of the word ‘culture’ in enabling staff to achieve excellence, and the related significance of effecting cultural change with sensitivity and consultation.
  • The significance, in discussion about workplace reforms, of familiar opportunity costs associated with multi-campus travel and of maintaining family-friendly work environments.

Outcome
The Chair of Academic Board thanked Wendy Cooper and members of the Board for the presentations and discussion and anticipated a later update on the progress of the Workplace Productivity Program Project.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
March 2008

Hot topic - The Deakin Student Experience - February 2008

Background
In June 2007 the Vice-Chancellor presented to the Academic Board an Implementation Plan setting out a clear set of actions, responsibilities and timeframes in response to the recommendations of the Review of Teaching and Learning conducted by PhillipsKPA. The Implementation Plan included the ways in which ‘The Deakin Student Experience’ would be developed as part of the University's teaching and learning strategy.

At its first meeting for 2008 held on 12 February, the Academic Board considered a paper titled The Deakin Student Experience, prepared by Ms Lin Martin, Vice-President and Council Secretary and Professor John Rosenberg, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). The paper set out:

  • the purpose, composition and terms of reference of the new Student Experience Subcommittee of the Planning and Resources Committee
  • the role of the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Academic Board in relation to ‘The Deakin Student Experience’ and the ways in which the split of responsibilities between the two committees could be managed to best foster cooperation and information exchange between the two committees
  • the consultative process undertaken in developing a common understanding of the student experience
  • the meaning of the term ‘The Deakin Student Experience’.

Academic Board discussion
Professors Joe Graffam (Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences), Jennifer Radbourne (Faculty of Arts and Education) and Des Smith (Faculty of Science and Technology) presented responses to the paper and a number of other members of the Board commented on various aspects associated with ‘The Deakin Student Experience’.

Set out below is a summary of the academic issues and matters raised by the Academic Board in relation to ‘The Deakin Student Experience’:

  • The student experience concept will transform Deakin's thinking, structures and practice in relation to its core business. Teaching and learning is a very important dimension of a student's experience, but identifying the student experience as the primary focus of attention alters our perspective, broadening our active frame of reference. The student experience refers to a student's engagement and relationship with Deakin. Focusing attention on the total experience is a significant advancement in facilitating very positive outcomes for students.
  • The engagement of, and the relationship between, the University and its students should reflect the students' experience over their entire association with Deakin, from entry to post-graduation. The Deakin Student Experience should include a focus on the transition period between entry and post-graduation. Promoting interaction with their discipline associations could foster greater student engagement in this transition period.
  • There is a responsibility at the school and faculty level for enriching students' experience including the clear communication of expectations; there is a converse responsibility for students for their learning, engagement and experiences.
  • The themes of transition and capstone (particularly in relation to experiential learning) provide a strong framework for the work of the Student Experience Subcommittee.
  • The composition of the Student Experience Subcommittee should be expanded to include wider representation from students and teaching staff.
Outcome
The Vice-President and Council Secretary thanked all members of the Academic Board for their input and undertook to consider the academic issues and matters raised in the discussions at the first meeting of the Student Experience Subcommittee, which would be held on 21 February 2008.

Professor Philomena Leung
Chair of the Academic Board
February 2008

Hot topic - A new model for the academic year at Deakin - September 2007

Background
In 2005 the introduction of the Higher Education Support Act significantly increased the flexibility of universities in structuring their teaching years. Other universities have taken advantage of the opportunity to introduce intensive teaching periods and numerous starting dates in some courses. Although Deakin has operated Summer and Early Start Summer semesters, and is this year trialling a Winter Semester, it has not taken full advantage of the available flexibility, retaining its two-semester arrangement as its essential structure.

At its sixth meeting for 2007 held on 6 September, the Academic Board considered a paper presented by Ms Lin Martin, Vice-President and Council Secretary proposing the introduction of a new model for Deakin's academic year.

The points below summarise the proposed model:

  • three equal trimesters of twelve weeks
  • trimesters evenly spread over the year, commencing in early November, March and July
  • two-week exam periods with no swot vac period
  • two-week inter-trimester breaks
  • intensive teaching periods could also be accommodated within each trimester teaching period
  • retention of two of the three AVCC common weeks.

Academic Board discussion
The Academic Board heard presentations from Professor Philip Clarke, Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, Professor Kate Smith-Miles, Head of the School of IT and Engineering in the Faculty of Science and Technology, and Professor Gary Smith, Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts. Following these presentations, a number of members spoke to the proposal. Set out below is a summary of the academic issues and matters raised by the Academic Board in relation to the proposal to introduce a new model for Deakin's academic year.

  • the model would enable the University to provide the flexibility for international and domestic undergraduate and postgraduate students to spread out, catch up or accelerate their progress as required and would reinforce the University's mission and commitment to flexibility
  • the model would be particularly attractive to students from the northern hemisphere
  • the model would encourage staff to focus on strategies for effective unit delivery, curriculum review and innovative pedagogies
  • the model would enhance resource utilisation and increase opportunities for academic staff to plan for and undertake intensive periods of research
  • the model would not be compulsory for all courses but could not be usefully implemented without a reasonable take-up rate by faculties
  • the model could accommodate, and in some cases enhance opportunities for field work and practical components of courses
  • students may be concerned about the model's lack of provision for a swot vac
  • the model would accommodate the necessary IT system downtime without jeopardising academic processes
  • the model could have implications for resource and load allocation between campuses
  • the model could require changes to staff workloads but would allow greater comparability of workloads
  • the model may be at odds with the recommendations of the Phillips KPA Review of Teaching and Learning in relation to enriching student experiences
  • the model may increase the likelihood of staff and student fatigue.

Academic Board decision
The Academic Board agreed that the proposal for the introduction of a trimester academic year for 2009 had enough academic merit to warrant further investigation by the University. It requested the Vice-President and Council Secretary to develop a template for the information she requires from each faculty in relation to this matter and requested the Deans to provide their responses to her in eight weeks.

Professor Philomena Leung
Deputy Chair of the Academic Board
September 2007

Deakin University acknowledges the traditional land owners of present campus sites.

29th November 2010