ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY COMMITTEE · ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY COMMITTEE A meeting of the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) will be held at 10.00 am on Tuesday

ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY COMMITTEE A meeting of the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) will be held at 10.00 am on Tuesday 17 February 2015, in

the Senate Room, Lincoln Building C8A, Level 3.

Members who are unable to attend the meeting are requested to send their apologies to Ms Amanda Phelps, University

Committee Secretary (phone +61 2 9850 7316 or e-mail [email protected]).

AGENDA

1. WELCOME / APOLOGIES

1.1 Disclosure of conflicts of interest

1.2 Adoption of unstarred items

To be circulated separately

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

Minutes of meeting held on Thursday 29 January 2015.

3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

3.1

Report to Academic Senate

Academic Senate has not met since the last ASQC meeting, Thursday 29 January 2015. The next Academic Senate meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 March 2015.

FOR NOTING

4. 2014 SCHEDULE

Pages 4 to 9

4.1 Retrospective program changes

BMarSc - Bachelor of Marine Science

FOR APPROVAL

EGY01M - Graduate Diploma in Arts – Egyptology specialization

FOR NOTING

5. 2015 SCHEDULE

Pages 10 to 11 5.1 Unit Updates (co-taught and quotas)

MGSM981

FOR APPROVAL

Pages 12 to 17 5.2 Late changes to the schedule of programs, majors or specialisations

MCHIROPRAC - Masters of Chiropractic

SEN03 - Bachelor of Engineering – Software Engineering

FOR APPROVAL

1

mailto:[email protected]

Pages 18 to 21 5.3 Notice of request for BIOL108 Human Biology exam to remain confidential.

FOR APPROVAL

6. 2016 SCHEDULE

Pages 22 to 31 6.1 Faculty supported Expression of Interest

Faculty of Arts

o Diploma of Tertiary Studies

FOR DISCUSSION


6.2 Review of units approved in 2014

FOR DISCUSSION

7. STRATEGY AND POLICY

Pages 32 to 39 7.1 Ratification of Results Quality Assurance Framework

FOR DISCUSSION

Pages 40 to 48 7.2 RPL Procedure and RPL Schedule of Equivalencies

FOR DISCUSSION


7.3 Amendments to the entry and articulation requirements for MUIC

FOR DISCUSSION

8. GENERAL BUSINESS


8.1 Unit Quotas

FOR NOTING

9. FUTURE ISSUES FOR ASQC

Review of Faculty Examination reports

Analysis of academic risk – assistance from Trudy de Vries and available data from Analytics Team

Regular review cycle for review of units and programs

Review of Capstone units

Review of saving (people and planet) and deeming decisions

Roles and responsibilities – possible mitigation of risk in Governance

Joint meetings with other Academic Senate sub-committees to have a shared understanding of roles and discussion of issues in common

Oversight of the new Faculty Unit Proposals

600 level units ( co-badging and co-teaching)

Faculty reports – timelines and scope

Unit guides

FOR NOTING

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

11. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Academic Standards and Quality Committee will be held on Tuesday 17 March 2015. Agenda items are due by Friday 6 March 2015.

2

Academic Standards and Quality Committee Agenda

17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 2: MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Academic Standards and Quality Committee meeting held on 29 January 2015. Papers to be circulated separately.

Recommendation For approval.

3


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 4.1: 2014 RETROSPECTIVE PROGRAM CHANGES

Recommendation

BMarSc – Bachelor of Marine Science – for approval

EGY01M – Graduate Diploma in Arts – Egyptology specialization – for noting

4

Page 1 of 2

2014 – LATE CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULEOF PROGRAMS, MAJORS OR SPECIALISATIONS

Faculty:

Department:

Program, major or specialisation name:

Handbook code:

PART 1: Changes to Requirements

Are changes required to the general requirements or specific requirements of the program, major or specialisation?* Yes No

Please submit a revised template for the program, major or specialisation clearly identifying your changes. Templates are available from http://senate.mq.edu.au/apc/academic_program14.html.

Rationale for request (academic or administrative reasons)

Consultation

Evidence of consultation is required where the change involves the addition or deletion of units owned by other Departments or Faculties. The Faculty requesting a change must consult with relevant Departments and Faculties before the request for a late change is considered. Please attach evidence of consultation (eg, written documentation of support, extract of FSQC/Faculty Board meeting minutes) and indicate outcome(s) achieved.

Does the change involve any unit(s) owned by another Department/Faculty? Yes No

Department/Faculty consulted Type of evidence provided Indicate outcome(s) achieved

Does this change affect: only students commencing in 2014 ALL students currently enrolled in the program

Have the affected students been contacted by the Faculty? Yes No

5

http://senate.mq.edu.au/apc/academic_program14.html

Page 2 of 2

PART 2: Changes to details

Are changes required to any of the following details? Yes No

Select applicable checkboxes.

Study mode Attendance mode Study period offerings

Admission requirements English language proficiency (IELTS) Candidature length

Please provide full details of any changes below.

Existing entry Revised entry

Rationale for request (academic or administrative reasons)

Affected majors/specialisations and/or awards Number of students enrolled

All requests for late changes to the schedules of programs, majors or specialisations must be endorsed by the Faculty Standards and Quality Committee (FSQC).

Submit this form to the Curriculum and Planning Team at [email protected].

! You must include in the submitting email the date of the FSQC meeting where endorsement was obtained.

Action Date Distributed for information FSQC endorsement

Faculty AD Learning and Teaching, Faculty Student Administration Managers, SBSS, Lifecycle Manager, Co-op Bookshop, COE, Timetables OFM, Ms E Chellapah OFS, Macquarie Analytics

ASQC approval

Handbook database updated

Distributed for information

6


7

8

9


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 5.1: UNIT UPDATES (CO-TAUGHT AND QUOTAS)

Recommendation For approval

10

2015 Handbook Late Change Request for

MGSM981 *

Description

Study Location: MGSM Schedule of Units requiring amendment: 2015 Unit code: MGSM981 Unit title: Special Topics in Management II Faculty: Department: Macquarie Graduate School of Management

Amendment Details:

Field requiring amendment: Offering Existing Entry: Code: TBD Attendance:

Revised Entry: Code: Term 2 NR Attendance:

Rationale for request: New offering based on visiting academic availability Affected awards/majors/specialisations: MBA elective Students Enrolled: none

Field requiring amendment: Quota Existing Entry: No Revised Entry: 48 Rationale for request: quota based on resource availability Affected awards/majors/specialisations: MBA elective Students Enrolled: None

Has this change already been considered and approved by your FSQC? Yes FSQC meeting date: 09/02/2015

11


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 5.2: LATE CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE OF PROGRAMS, MAJORS OR SPECIALISATIONS


12

13

14

15

16

17


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 5.3: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR BIOL108 HUMAN BIOLOGY EXAM TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL


18


17 February 2015

ITEM 5.3: REQUEST FOR BIOL108 HUMAN BIOLOGY EXAM TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL

Issue:

Michael Gillings would like to request that the final examination papers for his first year unit, BIOL108 Human Biology, remain confidential. The reasons for this request are both pedagogical and workload related.

More details are included in the attached memo.

It should be mentioned that this request was approved for S1, 2014 by ASQC in March. Continued exemption is retrospectively requested for S2, 2014 as well as throughout 2015.

Consultation Process: The following offices have been consulted prior to the submission of this paper:

Approved by FSQC

Recommendation Approval

Operational Impact: Biology 108

Submitted by: Adrian Boyd, Administration Officer – Governance, x7784, [email protected]

For enquiries contact: Michael Hitchens, Associate Dean FSQC, [email protected]

Michael Gillings, Professor of Biological Sciences, [email protected], x8199

19



MEMORANDUM

To: FSQC; cc. Michael Hitchins, Jenny Donald

Re: Publication of BIOL108 Human Biology Final Exams

I would like to request that the final examination papers for my first year unit, BIOL108 Human

Biology, remain confidential. The reasons for this request are both pedagogical and workload

related.

BIOL108 consists of 39 lectures that deal with Biology from a human viewpoint. The material

covered relates to the following learning outcomes:

By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. Demonstrate an understanding and working knowledge of key biological terms2. Explain physiological processes in the human body starting at the genetic level and working

through the biochemistry, cell and tissue functions to a physical outcome.3. Outline the complex interactions between organ systems that result in homeostasis4. Apply biological concepts to a range of contemporary issues5. Find scientific articles and critically evaluate the design and conclusions of biological

experiments6. Summarize key findings related to complex biological topics7. Make judgments about the validity of statements made about biological processes by

academics, journalists, politicians and other commentators

While some of the outcomes are simply about learning structures and key terms, the emphasis of the unit is on biological literacy, critical thinking, and complex judgments using diverse information sources. It is very difficult to construct exam questions that target these key learning outcomes, and the current final examination is the result of four years of incremental changes in response to student answers from previous years. The current exam short answer section successfully targets the learning outcomes using open ended questions, and having to re-invent the exam every semester would seriously lower the coverage and quality of the assessment. The current exam also effectively spreads the student marks, from 0% to >95%, and often contains natural breaks in the distribution at margins between grades. In summary, this is an effective, clear and powerful assessment, and I am very loathe to alter it.

Because the exam is consistent from year to year, I can identify areas where students perform poorly, and implement new teaching methods to address this shortfall. For instance, a poor understanding of evolutionary processes and natural selection led me to introduce a new teaching strategy, using evolution of the English language as an analogy for biological evolution. This strategy significantly improved student understanding, as assessed by improved answers to the examination questions on this subject area in the following years. This idea has been published [Gillings 2012 How evolution generates complexity without design: Language as an instructional metaphor. Evolution 66: 617-622.], and its implementation resulted in a Creativity and Contributions in Teaching Award. Additionally, using the same set of questions gives me a solid baseline to ensure that the

20

spread of student grades is consistent from year to year, and that improvements in student performance can be identified. This year, for instance, there was an increase in the number of outright failures. Had a new exam been introduced, there would always be the question of whether the new exam was more difficult than the previous examinations. As it happens, the increased failure rate is probably a direct consequence of the significantly lower ATAR and GPA of this year’s cohort. The first part of the final examination in BIOL108 consists of 50 multiple choice questions. As you will recognize, good multiple choice questions are extremely difficult to construct, and often require several year’s cycles of student responses to hone and edit the wording such that potential ambiguities are removed. The current set of questions is the result of just such an iterative process. Producing an additional 50 multiple choice questions each year as a rewritten exam is neither feasible nor pedagogically sound. The final reason I would request that the exam remain confidential is workload related. My teaching workload is already excessive, with over 90 lectures per year (BIOL108, BIOL260, BIOL376 and GEOS204), and 120 hours of supervising undergraduate fieldwork (BIOL227 and BIOL379), occupying somewhere just over 50% of my total workload. Additionally, BIOL 108 is to be offered (for the first time in 2014) in both semesters, meaning even more workload. If the final examination were publicly available, I would have to write two new final examinations every year. Because there are over 1000 students in the unit, I cannot mark the final examination by myself, and have to employ markers. Consequently, I need to write very detailed marking rubrics, which would also have to be done again twice each year. The current rubric is also the result of many years of analysis of the kinds of answers students provide. New examinations mean new scrutiny of ‘left field’ answers, some of which are creative and worth full marks, but are unlikely to be recognized as such by casual markers. I am specifically requesting an exception to the section of the final exam policy that requires examinations to be published, based on the policy that allows exceptions on sound pedagogical grounds and workload considerations. Based on the reasons outlined above, I would request that the final examinations for BIOL108 remain confidential, Michael Gillings Professor of Molecular Evolution Biological Sciences

21


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 6.1: FACULTY SUPPORTED EXPRESSION OF INTEREST

Faculty of Arts – Diploma of Tertiary Studies

Recommendation For discussion.

22

Currently logged in:

Rebecca Ball

General

The Education Services for Overseas Students [ESOS] Act 2000, and The National Code of Practice govern the delivery of courses to Internationalstudents. All programs of study offered to International students studying in Australia on a student visa must have a CRICOS code and comply with theseprovisions. This includes the requirement that holders of an international student visa maintain full-time enrolment. Therefore, consultation withMacquarie International will be required prior to submission.

Details

Faculty: Faculty of Arts

Department: No department

Award Name: Diploma of Tertiary Studies

Name of Award Diploma of Tertiary Studies

AQF Level and Qualification Type

AQF Guidelines are available here

(No option selected)

Volume of Learning / Duration

Minimum time to complete, expressed in FullTime Equivalent Years.

Refer to Academic Senate StructureStatement: Postgraduate CourseworkPrograms document

1 year FTE

If other, provide details:

Study Mode Full-time

Attendance Mode Internal

Location North Ryde

Study Period Offerings Other

If other, provide details Term dates specific to MUIC

Owning Faculty Faculty of Arts

Owning Department No department

Implementation Timeframe Implement for 2015

Rationale

If this proposal is for an award which will bestructured predominantly on new units, yourexpression of interest should include asummary of the new units and the level atwhich they will be offered, and an analysisof the market for the new award.

If this proposal is for an award repackagingexisting units, with minimum new units, lessdetail will be required.

The University Executive has requested the introduction of a pathway program for domestic studentsto replace the existing SIBT offerings.

It has been agreed that this will also replace the Next Step program as a pathway, and offer CSPplaces for slip back offers.

Note that this will be implemented for 2016 academic year and has no owning Faculty. It will beoffered through the MUIC

Replacement Does the proposed award replace an existing award? No

APC Web Forms http://senate.mq.edu.au/apc/webforms_prog2016/pages/onepage.php?...

1 of 6 6/02/2015 1:10 PM

23

Specification

English Language Requirements

English language requirements areexpressed as an "IELTS or IELTS equivalent"across five categories. Provide IELTS scoresagainst the listed categories. Refer toEnglish Language Requirements

Overall: 6

Speaking: 5.5 Listening: 5.5

Writing: 5.5 Reading: 5.5

Program Structure Is the award structured on Majors? No

Requirements

Upload Program Structure template.Templates are available from here.

Requirements file has been uploaded.

To view the requirements download the file FOA UG A TerStu ID112-1.xlsx

New Unit Requirements Will new units be required for the program structure? Yes

If yes, what year will the units be introduced? 2016

Professional Accreditation(if relevant)

Provide details of the professional body and timeframen/a

Work Component

Refer to Section 1 of the CRICOS ApplicationGuide

Does the program have a work-based training component which must be undertaken to gain thequalification? No

Working with Children Check Will students require a working with Children Check? No

Overview and Aims of the Program

Short introduction to the program and itscontext, important and distinctive features,and educational aims. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

The program provides an introduction to general tertiary level studies. The program is equivalent tothe first year of an undergraduate Arts or Commerce degree and will facilitate articulation into thesecond year of an undergraduate program offered by the Faculty of Arts or Business.

Students will be introduced to fundamental knowledge and concepts in the humanities and businessstudies and well and theoretical and applied knowledge around learning at a tertiary level

Program Learning Outcomes

Provide Program Learning Outcomes underthe categories shown. The GraduateCapabilities should be referenced againsteach relevant Program Learning Outcome.Refer to senate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

By the end of this program it is anticipated you should be able to:1. Explain some of the key theoretical concepts related to history, philosophy and business studies.2. Critically anlayse topics related to history, philosophy and business studies.3. Apply basic research skills and methods to solve problems.4. Express ideas creatively and communicate those ideas with imagination.5. Work productively in a group or team, showing abilities at different times to listen, contribute andlead effectively.6. Use written, oral and visual communication skills to communicate information and ideas.7. Reflect on ethical issues related to media information and its use.8. Recognise the social, cultural and political histories from which different media and modes ofcommunication practices and structures have emerged.9. Manage time and personnel resources effectively by drawing on planning, organisational, projectmanagement and leadership skills.

The number of PLOs that a program should have is not specified. As a guide, between eight andtwelve PLOs would be a reasonable number.

PLOs are made publicly available and so will be read by a wide audience. When writing PLOs it isuseful to ask "is this written in a way which would be intelligible, accessible and meaningful to ourstudents and prospective students?". Generally speaking, learning outcomes should be expressed ina form that includes action verbs, describing something your students can actually do, and can beassessed to have successfully done, like "identify", "describe" or "differentiate".

The AQF asks that PLOs should address the areas of Knowledge and Understanding, Skills andCapabilities, and the Application of Knowledge and Skills. It isn't necessary for each PLO to beclassified under one of these headings. However it is important for the overall collection of PLOs for aprogram to clearly address all of these factors.

Each program learning outcome should be mapped to the graduate capabilities it fosters, using thestandard letter codes given.

Learning and Teaching Methods

Describe the mix of learning and teachingmethods used in the program. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

Students will participate in a range of traditional and innovative learning activities designed todevelop the knowledge, understanding, skills and techniques required for successful participation inemployment or further study. Learning activities are varied and include both formal and informalexperiences.All units in the program are supported by an online environment that provides access to resourcessuch as lecture notes and recordings, readings, quizzes, discussion forums and assessment materials,and that facilitates communication between teaching staff and students.

Learning styles used may include:• Case studies, which provide students with an opportunity to apply their knowledge to real orsimulated scenarios in individual or group situations.• Simulations, modelled on real-life situations and providing learning experiences that promoteintegration of knowledge, skills and critical thinking.• Project work, which may be independent or involve group learning. Projects assist students indeveloping more in-depth knowledge and skills in conducting research, communication, and inplanning, organisation and time management.


2 of 6 6/02/2015 1:10 PM

24

• Readings taken from textbooks, journals, websites and other sources provide material to furtherdevelop concepts and knowledge referred to in individual units in the program.• Reflective activities, such as journals, assist students in integrating the course content and indeveloping the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from the learning environment into theworkplace.• Self-study activities, such as questions with worked examples, (non assessed) online quizzes, andtextbook questions and answers.• Online discussion forums, in which students may be required to submit responses to a givenquestion, and/or to participate in a set discussion topic.

Learning may be facilitated through the following teaching methods:• Lectures: Lectures are presentations designed to communicate a body of knowledge to a group ofstudents, often in a large lecture theatre, and provide insight into key concepts and understanding ofthe subject matter pertaining to a unit of study. Lectures in this program are typically delivered inthe traditional face-to-face mode, although some are interactive and students may be required toparticipate in a learning activity during the lecture. Extensive use is also made of the Echo 360lecture audio recording system. Lectures may also be video captured. This means that students canusually access lecture material, in some format, on an 'on demand' basis.• Tutorials: Tutorials are classes in which a tutor facilitates interactive learning with a small group ofstudents. In first year, tutorials tend to focus on ensuring that fundamental concepts and skills areacquired. As students progress on to units at a higher level, the focus shifts towards a more criticalengagement with the discipline. Tutorials provide students with the chance to ask questions, seekclarification, resolve problems, enhance their communication skills, and develop their ability to workin a collaborative manner with their peers.• Computer lab workshops or Practicals: The environment in which our graduates will work is onerequiring high level skills. These skills are developed, in part, in computer lab workshop sessions.These sessions allow students to acquire and practice skills that are highly valued in the workplace.In addition to formal workshop sessions under the direct instruction of a lecturer or tutor, studentsare able to access the labs to practice skills and to complete assessment tasks in their own time.

Assessment

Describe the assessment methods that willbe used to assess the learning outcomes.Refer to senate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

Assessment tasks are designed to develop understanding and assess achievement of the programlearning outcomes and will require students to integrate and exhibit skills and knowledge acquired.For each unit of study, students will complete between 3 and 4 assessment tasks.

Assessment tasks may include the following:• Written assessments in traditional academic format ranging from short essays to longer,self-directed research papers, literature reviews and annotated bibliographies.• Case studies or reports, written documents outlining the results of a detailed analysis of a situationusing empirical data and research. Case studies are used to assess critical thinking, analytical andresearch skill.• Assignments, in a variety of formats such as the production of an Excel spreadsheet, the analysis ofa mathematical problem or data set, or a brief written response to a topic question.• Online quizzes designed to assess knowledge, skills or capabilities, and typically consisting of aseries of questions requiring brief responses.• Class participation, including engagement in tutorial discussions or online discussions.• Written class tests, time limited assessments designed to assess a student’s knowledge or skills.• Individual or group oral presentations which may incorporate presentation technologies or beaccompanied by handouts.• Final examination, an invigilated assessment conducted at the end of session and designed toassess a student’s body of knowledge and critical thinking skills.

Support for Learning

Describe how learners are supported in theprogram. This might include descriptions ofinduction, staff expertise or standing,pastoral and academic support, academicadvising, resources etc. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

Macquarie University aspires to be an inclusive and supportive community of learners where allstudents are given the opportunity to meet their academic and personal goals. The University offers acomprehensive range of free and accessible student support services which include academic advice,counselling and psychological services, advocacy services and welfare advice, careers andemployment, disability services and academic skills workshops amongst others. There is also a bulkbilling medical service located on campus.Further information can be found at www.students.mq.edu.au/supportCampus Wellbeing contact details:Phone: +61 2 9850 7497Email: [email protected]/support/health_and_wellbeing/contact_us

Program Standards and Quality

Describe the principal mechanisms by whichthe standards and quality of provision aremaintained, assured and enhanced. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

The program is subject to an ongoing comprehensive process of quality review in accordance with apre-determined schedule that complies with the Higher Education Standards Framework. The reviewis overseen by Macquarie University's peak academic governance body, the Academic Senate andtakes into account feedback received from students, staff and external stakeholders.

Graduate Destinations andEmployability

Describe the career opportunities forgraduates of this program. Describe howstudents are prepared for the world of work,training and/or further study. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

N/A - articulation into Bachelor Degrees

Assessment Regulations

Identify any approved dispensation from theassessment regulations that applicants arelikely to need to know about or any specialfeatures of the regulations, such asaccrediting body requirements. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

This program is subject to Macquarie University regulations, including but not limited to thosespecified in the Assessment Policy, Academic Honesty Policy, the Final Examination Policy andrelevant University Rules. For all approved University policies, procedures, guidelines and schedules,visit: mq.edu.au/policy/

Mapping of Program Learning Outcomesto Units

Formal qualifications, RPL (where offered).

Requirements file has been uploaded. (Uploading another will replace the present one.)

No file selected.


3 of 6 6/02/2015 1:10 PM

25

RPL

Justification

Consultation

Refer to senate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html. Templates are availablefrom here.

To view the requirements download the file Map FOA UG A TerStu ID112-1.xlsx

Recognition of Prior Learning(if relevant)

Describe how the recognition of priorlearning will be applied for admission to thisprogram and/or for the granting of credit.Only list that information of specificrelevance to this program, information of amore general nature should be provided inthe Departmental RPL plan. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.

Macquarie University may recognise prior formal, informal and non-formal learning for the purpose ofgranting credit towards, or admission into, a program. The recognition of these forms of learning isenabled by the University’s Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Policy and its associated Proceduresand Guidelines. For recognition of prior informal and non-formal learning, please refer to theDepartmental RPL Plan, which describes the evidential requirements and approval processes forrecognising prior learning for entry or credit in this program.

Market Analysis

Explain how the proposed new award fitswith the Faculty's Learning and TeachingPlan providing specific examples.Demonstrate how this is consistent with theUniversity's Academic Plan. Refer tohttp://mq.edu.au/about/strategy/academicplan.html

Domestic MarketThe following competitor Australian institutions offer diplomas, a proportion of which is a domesticcohort.

We also have a number of Next Step enrolments - the domestic Diploma will enable slipback offers tostudents who don't meet Degree entry requirements and will absorb those Next step students as theNext Step program will be discontinued

For awards which will be offered to theInternational market, explain why this awardwill be attractive to International students.For assistance please contact Nicola Bate,Associate Director, Business Development,Macquarie International (ext 1190).

International Market (if relevant)N/A

Macquarie Advantages

If an established need is recognised for theproposed award, explain how MacquarieUniversity provides a desirable or uniqueopportunity for the successful establishmentof the proposed award. Determine in whatway your proposal is different from similarawards offered by competitors.

A Diploma program is currently run by Navitas on our North Ryde campus. Macquarie has chosen toestablish its own pathway College, which was a strategic decision from the Executive.

Macquarie seeks to take control of their own destiny via the creation of such a College, of which theDiploma of Tertiary Studies is a key component. This means it will be run and operated by MacquarieUniversity, with our curriculum and resources.

The advantage of this program is the new pipeline of students, where we have control over thequality and entrance standards, into the 2nd year of our undergraduate degree programs.

Our competitive advantages include:1. We are a highly respected Sydney based University2. Students will be able to enter Macquarie directly, as opposed to via a third party3. Our curriculum will be of high standard4. We will source only the best academic staff

Competitive Offerings

Provide a summary of similar awards offeredby Australian and international institutionswhich could be considered as competition forthe proposed award.

Institute Competitive Offering Additional information

UTS Insearch DiplomaNavitas SIBT DiplomaUWS Diploma

Estimated Student Demand Estimated Student Demand 1st Year ofoffering

2nd Year ofoffering

3rd Year ofoffering

Estimated Total EFTSU 150 200 250Lowest EFTSU for which award would be run 100 100 100

Estimated Full-time and Part-time Students 1st Year ofoffering

2nd Year ofoffering

3rd Year ofoffering

Estimated number of Full-time studentsEstimated number of Part-time students

Number of international students expected to enrol in this award Number of domestic students expected to enrol in this award


4 of 6 6/02/2015 1:10 PM

26

The below sections need to be filled in by Library and LTC staff respectivelyprior to submission to your Head of Department. Relevant staff members canbe found as follows:

Library: view a list of Research Librarians at www.mq.edu.au/on_campus/library/research/research_librarians

Learning and Teaching Centre: view a list of faculty EducationalDevelopers at www.mq.edu.au/about_us/offices_and_units/ltc/ltc_contacts#eddev or contact [email protected]

Please contact the relevant staff members with:

The name and unit code for this unit1.

The link to this webform (http://senate.mq.edu.au/apc/webforms_prog2016/)

2.

They should already have an account to access the system, but if not, theycan contact the Curriculum and Planning team for assistance in creating one(email: [email protected]).

You can proceed to any other part of this webform, but should only submitfor approval when these sections have been completed.

International

All new awards offered to International Students must comply with the ESOS Act (2000), the National Code of Practice, and have a CRICOS Code. The

Stakeholder Consultation

Before the proposal is considered by ASQC,faculties need to have consulted widely withrelevant stakeholders and indicate theoutcome(s) achieved.

Consultees Date ofconsultation Method of consultation and outcomes

University Executive through 2014 Meetings and instruction to actFBE and Arts A/Ds L&T and Q&S Meetings and supportMUIC CurriculumWorking Group through 2014 Meetings

Teaching Arrangements: Availability ofteaching and support staff

Please address:

Availability of academic and supportstaff to deliver the proposed awardprogram

A risk analysis including any backupplan in relation to the availability ofacademic and support staffing

Processes in place to guarantee thequality of academic staffing, availableresources for teaching and provisionof adequate curriculum delivery,assessment and authentication ofstudent work.

The Diploma will be taught by the Macquarie University International College which will commenceoperations later in 2015. Staffing is currently being planned by recently appointed Director of theCollege.

Library Consultation: Address whether library resources and services are available to support the proposed new unit. If new library resources,services or staffing are required, detail these and give an estimate of the initial start-up cost and ongoing annual cost.

Research Librarian: Susan Vickery Date: 5 February 2015

Summary Impact InformationResources:The Library can support this program, on the understanding that students enrolled in the program will be authenticated as MacquarieUniversity students, to be covered under license agreements to online content.New units proposed as part of this program will require a Library consultation to identify resources and services to support the unit that may falloutside the existing services and scope of collection development.Services / Staffing:

Learning and Teaching Centre Consultation: Address whether LTC resources and services are available to support the proposed new unit. If newLTC resources, services, staffing or infrastructure are required please detail these.

Educational Developer: Ian Solomonides Date: 5 February 2015

Summary Impact InformationResources:LTC resources will be available to support the new unitServices / Staffing:


5 of 6 6/02/2015 1:10 PM

27

If you experience problems with this site, please email [email protected]

following provisions are mandatory for CRICOS registration:

Providers may only offer courses to International students on a full-time basis (Part C.S.7.1)

International students may take no more than 25 per cent of their course online or by distance education (Part C.S.9)

International students must be enrolled in at least one face-to-face subject in each compulsory teaching period (Part C.S.9)

Other

Approvals

Name: Sherman Young Ext: 6778 Email: [email protected] Date: Tue - 13/1/15 Director

Comment:

Name: Kylie Shorrock Ext: 4262 Email: [email protected] Date: Fri - 30/1/15 Faculty Board

Comment: Supported by ASQC 29/1/15

Name: Sherman Young Ext: 6778 Email: [email protected] Date: Thu - 5/2/15 Director

Comment:

Name: Kylie Shorrock Ext: 4262 Email: [email protected] Date: Thu - 5/2/15 Head of Department

Comment: On behalf of Sherman Young

Name: Kylie Shorrock Ext: 4262 Email: [email protected] Date: Thu - 5/2/15 FSQC

Comment: On Behalf of Sherman Young

Name: Kylie Shorrock Ext: 4262 Email: [email protected] Date: Thu - 5/2/15 Faculty Board

Comment: On behalf of Sherman Young

Full Time Mode

Will international students be able to undertake the award in full time mode?

No

If this award is not offered in full time mode, it must not be offered to International students. Please contact MI for furtherinformation.

Arrangements with Other Providers

Other provider arrangements may includepartnerships with other institutions, highereducation providers, or entities.

Does the program have arrangements with other providers? No

External Benchmarks

State the names (with links) of any externalbenchmarks that have been applied in thedesign of this program. Refer tosenate.mq.edu.au/apc/resources.html.


6 of 6 6/02/2015 1:10 PM

28

Undergraduate Award Template

AWARD NAME:

General requirements:24

--NANANANA

Specific minimum requirements:

Status Selection Unit Code Unit TitleUnit CP Select Total

100 LEVELRequired PHIL137 Critical Thinking 3Required ISYS100 IT & Society 3Required ACMU100 Academic Communication 3Required FBE104 Tertiary Learning 3Required MAS104 Australian Media 3Required STAT150 Statistics 3Required BBA102 Principles of Management 3Required MHIS115 Big History 3

TOTAL CREDIT POINTS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROGRAM 24

Diploma of Tertiary Studies

Credit Points

Minimum number of credit points for the degreeMinimum number of credit points at 200 level or aboveMinimum number of credit points at 300 level or aboveCompletion of a designated People unitCompletion of a designated Planet unit

Completion of other specific minimum requirements as set out belowCompletion of a designated PACE unit

29

PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMESMQ Graduate Capabilities*

PHIL

137

ISYS100 ACMU100 FBE104 MAS104 STAT150 BBAS102 MHIS115 UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

UN

IT C

ODE

1Explain some of the key theoretical concepts related to history, philosophy, statistics and business studies. K, T, P √√√ √√√ √√√ √√√ √√√

2Critically anlayse topics related to history, philosophy and business studies. P, T √√√ √√√ √√√

3 Apply basic research skills and methods to solve problems. P, J, T √ √ √√ √ √√ √ √√

4Express ideas creatively and communicate those ideas with imagination. I, C √ √√√ √ √ √

5Work productively in a group or team, showing abilities at different times to listen, contribute and lead effectively. C,J √ √√ √√ √ √ √ √

6Use written, oral and visual communication skills to communicate information and ideas. I,C √√ √√ √√ √√√ √√ √ √√ √√

7 Reflect on ethical issues related to media information and its use. E,A √√√

8

Recognise the social, cultural and political histories from which different media and modes of communication practices and structures have emerged. K,C,E √ √√√ √√√

9

Manage time and personnel resources effectively by drawing on planning, organisational, project management and leadership skills. J,L √ √√√ √√

10

*Macquarie University Graduate Capabilities

Cognitive capabilties ✓

(K) discipline specific knowledge and skills(T) critical, analytical and integrative thinking(P) problem solving and research capability(I) creative and innovative ✓✓

Interpersonal or social capabilities ✓✓✓

(C) effective communication(E) engaged and ethical local and global citizens(A) socially and environmentally active and responsible

**

Personal capabilities(J) capable of professional and personal judgement and initiative(L) commitment to continuous learning

5. Additional option sets should be added as needed.

Option Set:Option Set: Option Set:Required Units

pre requisite or small contribution to PLO

moderate contribution to PLO

major contribution to PLOContribution to the achievement of a PLO is based on both the relevance of the work in the unit to the PLO and the PLO's weighting in the assessment

2. Any pathway through an award must be able to satisfy all PLOs, i.e if one PLO is met by units in one option set only, all units within the option set must include that mapping.

1. It is expected that each unit will be mapped to a subset of PLOs and Graduate Capabilities, not routinely to all.

3. Option sets MUST be included if they are needed for coverage of any PLO.

4. Option sets MAY be omitted if they do not make any unique contribution to PLO coverage.

MAPPING OF PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES (PLOS) TO UNITS

Name of Award:

Name of Major/Specialisation: Option Set:

Contribution to achievement of PLO** COMMENTS

30


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 6.2: REVIEW OF UNITS APPROVED IN 2014

Papers to be circulated separately


31


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 7.1: RATIFICATION OF RESULTS QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK


32


17 February 2015 Item 7.1

ITEM 7.1: RATIFICATION OF RESULTS QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Overview Quality Assurance Framework A quality assurance framework to support the preparation and ratification of results has been developed. This project responded to a resolution by Academic Senate to discharge the responsibility for ratification of results to Faculty Boards following their establishment in early 2015. The framework incorporates commonalities and best practice from currently established models within faculties, and aims to provide the University with a consistent and unified approach to this process. The development of the Framework was informed by consultation with the Associate Deans from each faculty, and through:

• analysis of previous Faculty Examination Results Reports• review of relevant frameworks and guidelines, including the AQF and TEQSA• benchmarking of frameworks, policies and processes at other Australian universities

The document references the Moderation Framework and the Unit and Program Review Cycles which are currently being developed by CSFC.

Supporting Documents A set of Supporting Documents have been developed to provide guidance on how the Framework might be applied within faculties:

• Example Process/Workflow• Standardised Content for Report Templates

The development of descriptive Function Statements for the various tiers of the process, including the Department Assessment, Faculty Assessment and Faculty Board meetings, will be flagged for consideration by Faculty boards.

Administrative Arrangements In preparation for the implementation of the Framework, a review of administrative functions was undertaken. The review involved consultation with central Student Administration, Examinations, Student Systems, faculties and Governance Services, and proposes:

• a new timeframe for the ratification of results process which provides faculties with twoadditional working days (four days in total) for marking and quality assurance processes

• a coordinated process between ratification of results in faculties and release of results bycentral Student Administration

Non Standard Study Periods The release of results dates for the 47 University study periods have been mapped to Faculty Board dates, with a number identified as not aligning with the Faculty Board dates. Previously, the Chair of Academic Senate has ratified results for these periods and, as such, an alternative arrangement will need to be considered by Faculty Boards and approved by Academic Senate.

Consultation Process The following individuals/offices have been consulted prior to the submission of this paper:

• Chair of Academic Senate• Chair of ASQC• Associate Dean (Standards & Quality), Faculty of Arts• Associate Dean (Standards & Quality), Faculty of Business & Economics• Associate Dean (Standards & Quality), Faculty of Human Sciences

33

• Associate Dean (Standards & Quality), Faculty of Science and Engineering• Associate Dean (Learning & Teaching), Faculty of Human Sciences• Head of Governance Services• Head of Student Administration• Academic Senate (18 December 2014)• Curriculum Standards Framework Committee (18 November 2014)

Next Steps • 17 February 2015: Framework and supporting documents presented to CSFC for noting• 18 February 2015: Framework and supporting documents presented to CSFC for

consideration and recommendation• Consultation with Faculty Boards regarding the development of Function Statements for the

various tiers of the process• 3 March 2015: Framework and supporting documents presented to Academic Senate for

approval• June, 2015: Framework implemented for Session 1, 2015

Operational Impact • Faculties• Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC)• Academic Senate• Governance Services• Student Administration, including Examinations and SBSS

Submitted by: Professor Dominic Verity, Chair of Academic Senate

For enquiries contact: Hayley Harris, Projects, Governance Services, x4226

34

Ratification of Results: Quality Assurance Framework The Ratification of Results Quality Assurance Framework underpins the processes and articulates the framework supporting the ratification of results and comprises:

1. Five Overarching Principles 2. A set of Quality Standards 3. The Quality Assurance Cycle with Expected Actions 4. A set of Supporting Documents to encourage consistency in the processes (‘plan’) and

reporting (‘check’) stages of the Cycle.

The Framework is visually represented in Appendix A.

Overarching Principles The Framework has been developed based on five overarching principles:

• Fairness: just and reasonable action in accordance with accepted rules or principles. Procedural fairness requires that all cases be treated in essentially the same way, subject to the same or equivalent scrutiny, and evaluated using the same or equivalent rules and procedures.

• Transparency: the open provision of information. Transparency is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to access and examine process, information, discussion and decision making.

• Objectivity: the state or quality of being objective, just and unbiased. Objectivity involves informed and unguarded discussion and review.

• Reliability: an indication of consistency. Reliability determines the degree to which processes produce consistent outcomes, and perform their intended function, across varying settings. Information and data must be valid to ensure reliability.

• Continuous Quality Improvement: an ongoing effort to improve quality. Continuous Quality Improvement involves incremental and/or breakthrough improvement of processes that lead to the achievement of higher levels of quality.

It is expected that these five principles will be recognised and embedded in all aspects of the quality assurance processes in each Faculty.

Quality Standards The six Quality Standards are key elements of the Quality Assurance Framework:

• Moderated standards-based assessment: Assessment is standards-based, and is subject to moderation, as outlined in the Moderation Framework.

• Moderated grading: Grading reflects achievement against the approved standards, and these standards observe the broader University policies on grading and assessment. Grading is subject to moderation, as outlined in the Moderation Framework.

• Identification and reporting of quality issues: Unexpected results and significant issues are identified and reported.

• Robust discussion of quality issues: Unexpected results and significant issues are robustly and objectively discussed.

• Commitment to resolution of quality issues: Strategies to address unexpected results and significant issues are proposed, and implemented, to promote continuous quality improvement and conclude a cycle of quality enhancement.

37

• Transparent and improvement-focussed processes: Reporting, review, strategy proposals, progress and outcomes are documented.

In developing the Standards for the Framework, ensuring fairness, transparency, objectivity and reliability in the processes and reporting, and promoting continuous quality improvement in the review and monitoring components are recognised as important.

Quality Assurance Cycle The Quality Assurance Cycle is divided into five stages: Plan, Act, Check, Monitor and Improve. These stages do not stand in isolation from one another and, in fact, must feed into each other to promote continuous quality improvement.

Each stage of the Cycle has a set of Expected Actions which support the evaluation and measurement of performance against the Standards, and contribute to continuous improvement.

STAGE EXPECTED ACTIONS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. PLAN 1.1. Each Faculty establishes processes to monitor

the ratification of results process against the Quality Standards. These should include sub-processes at the unit and department level.

1.2. Each Faculty evaluates its processes periodically.

Example process/es to illustrate application of framework within a Faculty, including a statement of function for the various tiers in the ratification of results process.

2. ACT 2.1. Each Faculty monitors its performance against the Quality Standards, as per the established Faculty processes.

2.2. Each Faculty identifies unexpected results or significant issues in relation to the Quality Standards.

Example reporting models/standardised templates to illustrate the type of information, and level of detail, expected at the various tiers in the ratification of results process.

3. CHECK 3.1. Each Faculty reports on its performance against the Quality Standards.

3.2. Each Faculty reports unexpected results or significant issues in relation to the Quality Standards.

3.3. Each Faculty initiates a review of its processes and/or units periodically, or in response to identified issues. Where a review of a unit is required, this should feed into the broader Program and Unit Review Cycle.

Example reporting model/standardised templates to illustrate the type of information, and level of detail, expected at the various tiers in the ratification of results process.

4. MONITOR 4.1. The Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) will monitor and review processes in accordance with the annual review cycle.

5. IMPROVE 5.1. Where an issue is identified, the Unit Convenor and/or Department will propose strategies to respond to this issue. These proposed strategies are documented and an evaluation of their effectiveness is provided after the next offering. This should feed into the broader Program and Unit Review Cycle.

5.2. Each Faculty proposes and implements changes to its processes to address identified

38

issues, where relevant. 5.3. Where broad and systemic issues are identified

by the Faculty, they will recommend amendments to University rules, policies or frameworks to Academic Senate for consideration and/or approval.

Appendix A

PLAN

ACT

CHECK MONITOR

IMPROVE

Moderated standards-based assessment Moderated grading

Identification and reporting of issues Robust and objective discussion of quality issues

Commitment to resolution of quality issues

Transparent and improvement-focused processes

FAIRNESS

OBJECTIVITY RELIABILITY

CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

TRANSPARENCY

39

Example Reporting Model: Suggested content

Unit Summary Report Department Summary Report Faculty (Quality) Summary Report Faculty Summary Report

AU

THO

RR

EPO

RT

PR

O-F

OR

MA

AU

DIE

NC

E

REPORT PRO FORMA ADetailed summary of individual unit information. This may include:· Comment on Unit Convenor Summary

Report from previous offering,· Comment on any issues that were

previously raised and how these wereaddressed in the unit’s current offering

· Evidence of moderation practices: inassessment tasks, in grading, inchecking of final distribution of grades,sampling of exam scripts at differentgrade standards etc.

· Comparison of distribution of gradeswith earlier years

· Identifying noteworthy or unexpectedresults or experiences, including highfailure rates and high pass rates

· Any proposed amendments to unitfollowing experiences/results/evaluation for the given session

REPORT PRO FORMA BMedium-level summary of overall departmental information. This may include:· Report on any ongoing issues· Update on any outstanding action

items from the last Faculty Assessmentmeeting

· Evidence of moderation practices: inassessment tasks, in grading, inchecking of final distribution of grades,sampling of exam scripts at differentgrade standards etc.

· Report on any issues with units beingoffered for the first time

· Units with high failure rates (e.g. 20%or greater - differentiating betweenFW, FA & F grades)

· Units with high pass rates (e.g. 95% orgreater)

· Units with significant grade distributionchanges (e.g. >15% from the previoussession)

· Suggest amendments to teachingstrategies, units and/or relevantpolicies or rules of the University

· Report on any issues, points of concernor positive outcomes that thedepartment wishes to highlight

REPORT PRO FORMA DHigh-level summary of overall faculty information. This may include:· Confirmation that a quality assurance

process has been established, andfollowed

· Identification of common/overallthemes

· Highlight/extracts from DepartmentAssessment meeting minutes:

· ongoing issues/outstanding actionitems

· Units with high fail rates· Units with high pass rates· Units with significant grade

distribution· Issues/points of concern/positive

outcomes· Suggest amendments to teaching

strategies, units and/or relevant policiesor rules of the University

· Faculty (Quality) Summary Reports and/or Minutes attached for information

Unit Convenor/s Head/s of Department Executive Dean, or nominee

· Department Assessment Board· Faculty Assessment Board Faculty Assessment Board Academic Senate

REPORT PRO FORMA CHigh-level summary of overall departmental information. This may include:· Noteworthy issues, such as

significantly high fail or pass rates, ormatters relating to moderationpractices

· Outlining Departmental qualityassurance process

· Suggest amendments to teachingstrategies, units and/or relevantpolicies or rules of the University

· Department Summary Reports and/orMinutes attached for information

Faculty Board

Associate Dean (S&Q), or nominee

35

Example Process: Ratification of Results (DRAFT)U

nit

Co

nve

no

rD

ep

artm

en

t A

sse

ssm

en

t B

oar

dFa

cult

y A

sse

ssm

en

t B

oar

dFa

cult

y B

oar

dA

cad

em

ic S

en

ate

ASQ

CResourcesProcess

Unit Convenor marks assessments and assigns final grades

Moderation of assessment practices (ongoing) and final grades (as per Moderation Framework and established Department/Faculty Moderation processes)

Unit Convenor considers performance against Quality Standards

Department Assessment Board (DAB) reviews, robustly and objectively discusses, and minutes the discussion of ‘Unit Summary Reports’

Faculty Assessment Board (FAB) reviews, robustly and objectively discusses, and minutes the discussion of ‘Departmental Summary Reports’ (Unit Summary Reports attached)

Unit Convenor documents unit-level performance against Quality Standards via the ‘Unit Summary Report’

Head of Department documents department-level performance against the Quality Standards via the ‘Departmental Summary Report’

Unit Summary Report provided to Head of Department for Department Assessment Board

Departmental Summary Report provided to Faculty Assessment Board

Do significant issues/proposed strategies trigger changes to a unit/s?

Faculty Board considers the ‘Faculty Summary Report’ (Final Grade recommendations and Department Summary Reports attached)

NO

Associate Dean (S&Q), or nominee, documents faculty-level performance against Quality Standards via the ‘Faculty Summary Report’

TRIGGER: Feed into broader Unit

& Program Review Cycle

YES

Action Item recorded. Follow-up required after

change/strategy has been implemented.

Faculty Summary Report provided to Faculty Board

Do significant issues trigger recommendations for changes to the process, or to University rules or policy?

TRIGGER: Proposed

amendments to process, rule or

policy recommended to

Academic Senate.

Action Item recorded. Outcome of

recommendations provided at next Faculty

Board meeting/communicated to

impacted Departments.

YES

Executive Dean, or nominee, evidences that faculty-established processes have been followed via the ‘Faculty Board Summary Report’ [Report Pro-Forma D: High-level detail]

NO

Faculty Board ratifies results

Academic Senate notes ratification of results, and considers recommended amendments to process, rules or policy.

Faculty Board Summary Report provided to Academic Senate

Report Pro-Forma: A

Report Pro-Forma B

Report Pro-Forma C

Report Pro-Forma D

Monitor and review processes in accordance with the annual review cycle.

Function Statement: A

Function Statement: B

36


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 7.2: RPL PROCEDURE AND RPL SCHEDULE OF EQUIVALENCIES

RPL Procedure is recommended for approval and the Schedule of Equivalencies for consideration and recommendation to Academic Senate for approval.


40

Procedure for the Development of Formal Credit Transfer, Articulation or Dual Degree Arrangements Page 1 of 3 PDF created <date of approval> from source: < url> . Policy Central must be consulted for most recent version. Documents sourced from Policy Central (www.mq.edu.au/policy) take precedence over documents from other sources.

PROCEDURE

Procedure for the Development of International Articulation Agreements

and Related Arrangements

Purpose Outline the procedure for developing an International Articulation, Credit Transfer or Dual Degree Arrangement.

Outline the relevant decision making timelines.

Relevant RPL Policy Definitions

Credit Transfer: a process that provides students with consistent Credit outcomes for units or components of a Program of Study based on identified equivalence in content and Learning Outcomes.

Articulation: a process that enables students to progress from a completed Award to another Award with predetermined admission and/or Credit arrangements. Articulation is formalised by an approved institutional agreement

Dual Degree: [insert definition – needed as it is mentioned in purpose]

Procedure This procedure requires actions by the following:

Proposer of an RPL agreement/(i.e. Macquarie International – as itmay include Program Directors according to the information below)

Program ConvenerDirector

Faculty Board/ Executive Dean of Faculty

ASQC

Student Administration

Proposal

Proposer Research and identify programs and markets for Formal Credit Transfer (i.e. Pathway), Articulation or Dual Degree Arrangements.

Scope and compile a proposed arrangement in consultation with the Program Convener Director and relevant stakeholders, including X (who are some of these relevant stakeholders? AD Curriculum and Standards, AD International). If the Program Convener Director is the proposer in a specific instance, consultation with identified stakeholders will still occur.

Develop the proposed arrangement in accordance with the RPL pPolicy’s preference for defined entry points enabling block credit. Consider holistically a comparison of the staged program level learning outcomes (when available) between the proposed courses.

Prepare required evidence in accordance with the RPL pPolicy through the Articulation Agreements and Related Arrangements Template.

Comment [MJS1]: No involvement mentioned

Comment [MJS2]: The RPL Policy does not preference defined entry points which enable block credit. Suggest removing this reference.

41

http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/index.html


Submit the completed online form with supporting evidence to the Program Convener Director or nominee of Executive Dean (if the proposal is put forward by Program Director).

Approval

Program ConvenerDirector or nominee of Executive Dean

Approve Ccredit transfer, articulation or dual degree arrangements are to be approved in accordance with the principles contained in the Higher Education Standards Framework, Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Pathways Policy, and Macquarie Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Policy 2015. These principles include ensuring that prior learning is current and relevant to the Learning Outcomes of the Award, assessment is undertaken by academic or teaching staff with expertise in the discipline area and in RPL assessment, etc.

Decision makers should as a priority preference the assessment of the prior learning at athe program level, through the use of program level learning outcomes for the purpose of granting block credit. Decision making should be timely, efficient, fair, transparent and, auditable. It should also and be based on maximising the credit available to students, while .

Decision makers should take steps to ensuringe that students are equipped to succeed in the remainder of their Macquarie Program and that the academic integrity of the program is not compromised.

The Program Convener Director should consider the proposed agreements alignment with these principles and within one weekfive working days of receiving the application:

Recommend the proposal to the Faculty Board, or

Defer the proposal and request further information, or

Reject the proposal

If recommended, the Program Convener Director should indicate this on the online application and send the application to the Chair of the Faculty Board. This will be circulated to the Board for approval.

Proposals may also be referred to the Executive Dean for review in cases where agreement cannot be reached between Program Director Conveners and Proposers and a rationale for why it should go ahead is to be provided.

Faculty Board or Dean by Executive action

Assess the application and within one weekfive working days of receiving the application:

Approves, or

Defers decision making pending further information, or

Does not approve

ASQC or delegated working group or

Consider and approve or not approve within one weekfive working days of receiving the application, formal credit transfer arrangements that are outside the Schedule of Relative Equivalences or include People, Planet or PACE

Comment [MJS3]: Happy to not have this …

Comment [MJS4]: 5 working days is to short and an unachievable ask. We’ll be too busy meeting deadlines instead of ensuring a fair assessment. Or as a consequence, the ‘Defer the proposal’ options will be the standard response. Suggest 10 days.

Comment [ASQC5]: Feedback provided by Dr Gordon Brooks after the meeting

Comment [MJS6]: It may as well say ‘Chair by Executive Action’ as per ASQC wording below

42



Chair by Executive action

exemptions.

Consider and approve or not approve dual degree arrangements.

The decision is recorded on the online system and the Proposer, Program Convener and Executive Dean are informed immediately by an email from the Chair of the ASQC or delegate, of the result.

Monitoring

Macquarie International

(if applicable)

In conjunction with relevant Faculties and Departments, monitor and report student progression/attainment (via GPA) to Faculty Boards at the end of the study period.

Make student progression reports available to ASQC for annual review.


Identify curriculum changes and commence review of the arrangement when applicable.

Rework Reassess the entry point or conduct curriculum mapping if required.

ASQC Periodical rReview of arrangements triggered when curriculum changes occur and in accordance with in addition tothe standard 3year ASQC review cycle.

Partner Institutions

According to the terms of the agreement, partner institutions will advise Macquarie International of any curriculum changes which have a bearing on established Formal Credit Transfer, Articulation or Dual Degree Arrangements.

Macquarie International will advise Program Conveners Director of the changes which will activate the internal review process.

Contact Officer

Date Approved Day Month Year

Approval Authority

Date of Commencement Day Month Year

Amendment History

Date for Next Review

Related Documents

Documents Superseded by this Procedure

Keywords

Comment [MJS7]: What is the study period i.e. S1, S2, S3 or annual

43


PROCEDURE

Procedure for the Development of International Articulation Agreements

and Related Arrangements

Purpose Outline the procedure for developing an International Articulation, Credit Transfer or Dual Degree Arrangement.

Outline the relevant decision making timelines.

Relevant RPL Policy Definitions

Credit Transfer: a process that provides students with consistent Credit outcomes for units or components of a Program of Study based on identified equivalence in content and Learning Outcomes.

Articulation: a process that enables students to progress from a completed Award to another Award with predetermined admission and/or Credit arrangements. Articulation is formalised by an approved institutional agreement

Dual Degree: [insert definition – needed as it is mentioned in purpose]

Procedure This procedure requires actions by the following: • Proposer of an RPL agreement/(i.e. Macquarie International – as it

may include Program Directors according to the information below) • Program ConvenerDirector• Faculty Board/ Executive Dean of Faculty• ASQC• Student Administration

Proposal

Proposer Research and identify programs and markets for Formal Credit Transfer (i.e. Pathway), Articulation or Dual Degree Arrangements.

Scope and compile a proposed arrangement in consultation with the Program Convener Director and relevant stakeholders, including X (who are some of these relevant stakeholders? AD Curriculum and Standards, AD International). If the Program Convener Director is the proposer in a specific instance, consultation with identified stakeholders will still occur.

Develop the proposed arrangement in accordance with the RPL pPolicy. ’s preference for defined entry points enabling block credit. Consider holistically a comparison of the staged program level learning outcomes (when available) between the proposed courses.

Prepare required evidence in accordance with the RPL pPolicy through the Articulation Agreements and Related Arrangements Template.

44


Submit the completed online form with supporting evidence to the Program Convener Director or nominee of Executive Dean (if the proposal is put forward by Program Director).

Approval

Program ConvenerDirector or nominee of Executive Dean

Approve Ccredit transfer, articulation or dual degree arrangements are to be approved in accordance with the principles contained in the Higher Education Standards Framework, Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Pathways Policy, and Macquarie Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Policy 2015. These principles include ensuring that prior learning is current and relevant to the Learning Outcomes of the Award, assessment is undertaken by academic or teaching staff with expertise in the discipline area and in RPL assessment, etc.

Decision makers should as a priority preference the assessment of the prior learning at athe program level, through the use of program level learning outcomes for the purpose of granting block credit. Decision making should be timely, efficient, fair, transparent and, auditable. It should also and be based on maximising the credit available to students, while .

Decision makers should take steps to ensuringe that students are equipped to succeed in the remainder of their Macquarie Program and that the academic integrity of the program is not compromised.

The Program Convener Director should consider the proposed agreements alignment with these principles and within one week10five working days of receiving the application:

• Recommend the proposal to the Faculty Board, or

• Defer the proposal and request further information, or

• Reject the proposal

If recommended, the Program Convener Director should indicate this on the online application and send the application to the Chair of the Faculty Board. This will be circulated to the Board for approval.

Proposals may also be referred to the Executive Dean for review in cases where agreement cannot be reached between Program Director Conveners and Proposers and a rationale for why it should go ahead is to be provided.

Faculty Board or Dean by Executive action

Assess the application and within one weekfive working days of receiving the application:

• Approves, or

• Defers decision making pending further information, or

• Does not approve

ASQC or delegated working group or

Consider and approve or not approve within one weekfive working days of receiving the application, formal credit transfer arrangements that are outside the Schedule of Relative Equivalences or include People, Planet or PACE

45


Chair by Executive action

exemptions.

Consider and approve or not approve dual degree arrangements.

The decision is recorded on the online system and the Proposer, Program Convener and Executive Dean are informed immediately by an email from the Chair of the ASQC or delegate, of the result.

Monitoring

Macquarie International

(if applicable)

In conjunction with relevant Faculties and Departments, monitor and report student progression/attainment (via GPA) to Faculty Boards at the end of the study period S1, S2 and S3.

Make student progression reports available to ASQC for annual review.


Identify curriculum changes and commence review of the arrangement when applicable.

Rework Reassess the entry point or conduct curriculum mapping if required.

ASQC Periodical rReview of arrangements triggered when curriculum changes occur and in accordance with in addition tothe standard 3year ASQC review cycle.

Partner Institutions

According to the terms of the agreement, partner institutions will advise Macquarie International of any curriculum changes which have a bearing on established Formal Credit Transfer, Articulation or Dual Degree Arrangements.

Macquarie International will advise Program Conveners Director of the changes which will activate the internal review process.

Contact Officer Date Approved Day Month Year Approval Authority Date of Commencement Day Month Year Amendment History Date for Next Review

Related Documents

Documents Superseded by this Procedure Keywords

46


SCHEDULE

Schedule of Equivalencies: Formal Learning for Undergraduate

Programs

Purpose Specify the standard maximum credit point equivalencies associated with a range of sub bachelor qualifications.

This Schedule is developed in line with AQF guidelines and should be read in conjunction with the Recognition of Prior Learning Policy and Schedule of Minimum Requirements at Macquarie.

Schedule A CREDIT TOWARDS BACHELOR DEGREES

Equivalent AQF level of previous qualification

Volume of

learning (FTE)

Standard Maximum Credit

Diploma (AQF 5) 1 year 0.51 year (12 24 credit points)

Diploma (AQF 5) 1.5 years 1.50 year (3624 credit points)

Diploma (AQF 5) 2 and 3 years

1.5 years (36 credit points)*

Advanced Diploma / Associate Degree (AQF 6) 1.5 years 1.5 years (36 credit points)

Advanced Diploma / Associate Degree (AQF 6)

2 and 3 years

2.0 years (48 credit points)*1

The amount of credit granted will not exceed the volume of learning of previous qualification, and the amount of credit awarded is proportional to the volume of the prior learning. The guiding principle is for students to be awarded the maximum appropriate credit available to their Macquarie qualification. Where this is not considered appropriate for a particular arrangement, a case supporting the reduced credit is to be included in the articulation submission

Undergraduate Macquarie students with an incomplete Bachelor Degree (AQF 7) from another accredited institution are eligible for credit on a pro rata basis in accordance with the Schedule of Minimum Requirements at Macquarie University.

* Additional information may be requested to support cases where these credit yields are sought. This information must be provided through the Articulation, Credit Transfer or Dual Degree Arrangements Template.

Formatted: Underline

47

Undergraduate Macquarie students with incomplete sub bachelor qualifications may apply for credit under the provisions for recognition of Non-formal Learning in accordance with the Recognition of Prior Learning Policy at Macquarie University

Undergraduate Macquarie students with incomplete sub bachelor qualifications may be considered for credit under the provisions for recognition of Non-formal Learning in accordance with the Recognition of Prior Learning Policy at Macquarie University.

Credit is only granted where the prior studies are relevant, and current and equivalent.

Credit will be granted at lower levels first and the majority of the credit will be applied at the 100 level.

Schedule B CREDIT POINT VALUES FOR A RANGE OF ACCREDITED INCOMPLETE QUALIFICATIONS

Where a student has multiple completed sub Bachelor awards, credit is granted from the award that yields the higher credit point value.

Where a student has a completed sub Bachelor award and higher level qualifications, credit is aggregated in accordance with the Schedule of Minimum Requirements at Macquarie University.

Contact Officer Chair, Academic Senate

Date Approved

Approval Authority Academic Senate Date of Commencement For teaching sessions that commence after 1 January 2015 Amendment Dates n/a Date for Next Review January 2016 Keywords Credit Point Equivalencies, Completed Qualifications,

Incomplete Qualifications Policy Authorisation Recognition of Prior Learning Policy

48

http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/rpl/schedule_requirement.html

http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/rpl/schedule_requirement.html


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 7.3: AMENDMENTS TO THE ENTRY AND ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MUIC



49


17 February 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 8.1: UNIT QUOTAS



50