University Assessment Committee Minutes 1/2014 Monday 10 February 2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ www.griffith.edu.au/committees 1 GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the University Assessment Committee was held at 1.00 pm on Monday 10 February 2014, video-conferenced between room 2.06 Bray Centre (N54) Nathan campus and room 2.27 Information Services (L03) Logan campus and room 1.04 The Chancellery (G34) Gold Coast campus. MINUTES PRESENT APOLOGIES Associate Professor Heather Alexander (Chair) Ms Barbara Biviano Professor Nicholas Buys Profession Glenn Finger Mr Bruce Callow Professor Lorelle Frazer Professor Richard John Associate Professor Wendy Loughlin Mr Elliot Jones Ms Rebecca Seymour Mr Leigh Stevenson for Mr Bruce Callow Ms Karen van Haeringen By Invitation Ms Tamara Pratt (Item 11) Ms Kerry Young (Item 11) Ms Rachel Farnsworth (Secretary) 1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The minutes of the 8/2013 meeting of the University Assessment Committee were taken as read and confirmed. 2.0 DECLARATION OF INTEREST No members identified any conflict of interest, as outlined in the University policies on Conflict of Interest and Personal Relationships in the Workplace, which exist in respect of any of the items on the agenda. SECTION A: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO LEARNING AND TEACHING COMMITTEE 3.0 DATA RELATED TO 2013 ASSESSMENT PROCESSES 3.1 Each year the University Assessment Committee considers data about the implementation of assessment policies and processes to consider their impact on student learning and achievement standards. Monitoring the following data for 2013 is important given changes UAC made in 2012 for implementation last year to the following: Grading schema – data source is distribution of grades Academic standing – failure in a designated course and failure in a course three times – data source is academic standing data
Transcript
University Assessment Committee Minutes 1/2014 Monday 10 February 2014
NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the University Assessment Committee was held at 1.00 pm on Monday 10 February 2014, video-conferenced between room 2.06 Bray Centre (N54) Nathan campus and room 2.27 Information Services (L03) Logan campus and room 1.04 The Chancellery (G34) Gold Coast campus.
MINUTES
PRESENT APOLOGIES Associate Professor Heather Alexander (Chair) Ms Barbara Biviano Professor Nicholas Buys Profession Glenn Finger
Mr Bruce Callow
Professor Lorelle Frazer Professor Richard John Associate Professor Wendy Loughlin Mr Elliot Jones Ms Rebecca Seymour Mr Leigh Stevenson for Mr Bruce Callow Ms Karen van Haeringen By Invitation Ms Tamara Pratt (Item 11) Ms Kerry Young (Item 11) Ms Rachel Farnsworth (Secretary) 1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of the 8/2013 meeting of the University Assessment Committee were taken as read and confirmed.
2.0 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
No members identified any conflict of interest, as outlined in the University policies on Conflict of Interest and Personal Relationships in the Workplace, which exist in respect of any of the items on the agenda.
SECTION A: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO LEARNING AND TEACHING COMMITTEE
3.0 DATA RELATED TO 2013 ASSESSMENT PROCESSES
3.1 Each year the University Assessment Committee considers data about the implementation of assessment policies and processes to consider their impact on student learning and achievement standards. Monitoring the following data for 2013 is important given changes UAC made in 2012 for implementation last year to the following:
Grading schema – data source is distribution of grades
Academic standing – failure in a designated course and failure in a course three
Academic standing – increased the threshold GPA for academic standing in
undergraduate programs to 3.5 - data source is academic standing data and
GPAs of graduates
Deferred and Supplementary Assessment – data source is examination sittings
Review and appeal of grades application processes – data source is assessment
application data.
Assessment applications for special consideration, deferred assessment and
review of grade - data source is assessment application data.
3.2 The data provided (2014/0005255) shows the following:
Expected and attended exam sittings for semester 2 in 2011, 2012 and 2013 are
significantly less than those in semester 1 for the same years and have moved
significantly from a position of parity between the two semesters in terms of
expected and attended sittings in 2010.
Expected alternate exam sittings and central deferred exams also appear to be in
decline and again there is a discrepancy across the three years between
semester 1 and 2.
The discrepancy between expected and attended exam sittings widens between
those administered at the end of semester (82-93%) and those offered in the
deferred/supplementary examination period (70 – 84%).
The number of supplementary exams awarded in 2013 is five times those offered
previously. An increase in supplementary exams was expected with the removal
of the PC grade. Less supplementary examinations were awarded in semester 2,
2013 than semester 1 of the same year.
Central and School based supplementary examinations – the communication
around having a centrally run supplementary examination became clearer across
the year and the data for 2014 will be reviewed to further understand the impact of
policy changes
At the next meeting the Committee will review grade data for students who
passed supplementary examinations
Examinations and timetabling trialled SMS communication to students who were
offered supplementary examinations to try to increase attendance rates. It was
acknowledged that there is probably a group of students who are making their
own decisions not to attend.
Student Success Advisors also have a role in encouraging students to attend
supplementary examinations if awarded.
Applications for deferred assessment, alternate sittings, special consideration and
review of grade have declined.
The number of students with an academic standing status of excluded, probation
and warning increased in 2013 which was expected with raising the GPA
threshold for academic standing in undergraduate programs. There was a drop in
the number of students excluded in semester 1, 2013, overall the number of
students excluded in 2013 is less than the total number of exclusions in 2011.
Resolution 3.3 The University Assessment Committee resolved to report progress on changes
made to assessment policy and processes in 2013 to Learning and Teaching Committee and provide a background and context report to the Academic Provost.
4.0 GROUP ASSSESSMENT, SELF ASSESSMENT AND PEER ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
4.1 The Vice President Corporate Services required every policy in the policy library to be reviewed, approved in current form or updated. As part of this process the Group Assessment, Self Assessment and Peer Assessment Guidelines which had not been updated for many years were reviewed. It was also one of the policy areas slated for review by the University Assessment Committee during 2013.
4.2 Associate Professor Don Lebler and Professor Scott Harrison met with
academic services staff last year to discuss a review process. Associate Professor Lebler undertook to update the Guidelines, to reflect current best practice and updated terminology. Attached is a marked up version of the policy for the consideration of the Committee.
4.3 The Committee considered the revisions and provided one minor amendment
to section 3.1 producing a shared understanding of the learning objectives and marking criteria.
Resolution
4.4 The University Assessment Committee resolved to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee, the revisions to the Group Assessment, Self Assessment and Peer Assessment Guidelines (2014/0005256) with minor amendment as described in 4.3.
5.0 UAC ANNUAL REPORT 2013 AND 2014 WORK PLAN
5.1 An outcome of the 2010 Review of Academic Committee and its sub-committees is the requirement that an Annual Report be prepared for each committee and a work plan for the next year be developed for consideration at the Academic Committee the following year.
5.2 The Committee (8/2013 Meeting) approved the initial report for forwarding to Academic Committee. Attached (2014/0005259) is the updated report including Attachment A - assessment data following the conclusion of the semester 2, 2013 assessment period and an updated 2014 Work Plan.
5.3 Finalised data for the 2013 grade distributions will be included in the Annual
Report when available. The Committee noted the combined total of embedded and end on Honours completions is in decline due to the flatness of end-on completions for the past seven years and a decline in embedded honours after two years of significant increased completions. Changes to embedded Honours programs due to the AQF is likely to result in an increase in completions from 2015 onwards but those completions will include for the first time the classification of Honours III. It was also noted by the Committee that the introduction of research masters programs may result in a further decline in end-on honours completions
5.4 The Committee was advised that Professor Healy, Chair of the University
Appeals Committee, has written to the Chair, UAC advising that he recently considered a number of cases where students appealing against grades and /or classification for their Honours dissertation expressed serious concerns in terms of the differences that exist in the cut-offs of marks for determining grades for Dissertation and for the Honours Classification awarded. As a result Professor Healy has been invited to the March meeting to discuss the
matter and a background paper will be available for the Committee’s consideration.
Resolution
5.5 The University Assessment Committee resolved to recommend to Learning
and Teaching Committee that the 2013 Annual Report of University Assessment Committee (with inclusion of grade distribution data) and its 2014 Work Plan (2014/0005259) be forwarded to Academic Committee for its consideration.
SECTION B: ACTION UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
6.0 SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES OF SCHOOL ASSESSMENT BOARDS FOR SEMESTER 2, 2013
6.1 The Matters of Policy and Precedent for Semester 2, 2013 was provided to School Assessment Boards to inform them of recent changes in the University’s assessment practices. School Assessment Boards were asked to address and provide feedback in relation to:
Inclusion of the Conflict of Interest Declaration for all School Assessment
Boards and Panels. Any disclosures and subsequent actions arising from
those disclosures are to be minuted by the secretary.
Assessment and related policy changes/updates
Readiness for policy/procedure implementation
o Course profile – 20% maximum for unsupervised tests and
quizzes
o Use of TurnItIn or SafeAssign, draft and final submission points
and online marking
o Increased compliance with use of marks centre
o New academic integrity resources available
Consensus Moderation – changes in practice across the School
6.2 The School Assessment Boards Sharepoint site was introduced in semester 2, 2013. Assessment Board information was managed through the site before and after the meeting, the site serves as the recordkeeping repository. School Assessment Board Minutes and associated documentation uploaded to the site have been included in the semester 2, 2013 summary to the University Assessment Committee.
The University Assessment Committee was provided with a Summary of the Minutes of School Assessment Boards for Semester 2, 2013 (2014/0005254). There were a number of issues reported by School Assessment Boards most of which were similar to those reported in previous semesters. The Committee noted the following in School Assessment Board Minutes:
Evidence of different learning outcomes and achievement standards
between student cohorts e.g. on-campus versus off-campus, off-shore
versus Griffith campus and particular Griffith campuses such as Nathan
versus Gold Coast. This was attributed to issues such as appropriate
preparation of sessional staff, the need to provide marking guides and
more effectively calibrate markers.
Evidence of a marked increase in the percentages of higher grades (6 &
7) being awarded, suggested reasons included use of in-
class/unsupervised quizzes and the weightings of such assessment
types, and the coaching of assessment items through multiple feedback
cycles and resubmission.
Technical problems associated with My Marks, TurnItIn, the use of RW
grades and the Marks Entry Spreadsheet.
Requests for further advice about how resubmission is to be
operationalised particularly in the context of electronic assessment
applications and systems.
Evidence of both high and low failure rates, the former attributed to poor
attendance at on-campus learning activities and failure to complete in
class quizzes as well as increased usage and reliance on Lecture
capture.
Evidence students have poor referencing knowledge and increased
usage of others assignments (including commissioned work).
6.3 The Committee also noted that there had been a request to review provisions for supplementary assessment including the current threshold of 4. The Committee requested data in relation to the number of students who are at or near the threshold for supplementary assessment.
6.4 The analysis of academic integrity breaches attached to item 5 indicates:
Written assignments continue to attract the highest number of AI
breaches, accounting for approximately 73% of total breaches (526
breaches total). The most common types of breaches relate to
referencing and unacknowledged copying, followed by copying from the
internet and copying from text, artwork and diagrams.
Poor referencing comprises approximately 30% of breaches (217
breaches).
Students appear to commit breaches involving collusion and using
someone else’s assignment for more complex forms of assessment, e.g.
written assignments, problem-solving assignments and examination –
constructed response.
6.5 The Committee noted that there will be promotional work undertaken around orientation week and early in the semester in relation to academic integrity. There will be a focus on raising awareness about how to avoid accidently/unintentionally breaching academic integrity and the importance of not sharing their assessment tasks with other students.
Resolution
6.6 The University Assessment Committee resolved to review further data in relation to supplementary assessment thresholds at the March meeting.
7.1 The Committee has identified in its 2014 Work Plan the quality assurance of assessment as a key priority. There are three areas of endeavour for the Committee:
7.1.1 Development of a Framework for Quality Assurance of Assessment
The Committee was provided with a document (2014/0005257) outlining the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment Framework. This Framework identifies six components by which an institution can transparently communicate to internal and external audiences the quality of student learning outcomes and achievement standards through assessment. The six components are as follows:
Student learning outcomes statements
Assessment plans
Assessment resources
Current assessment activities
Evidence of student learning
Use of student learning evidence
The Committee agreed that a framework within which to work would provide consistency and alignment of processes. Some Groups already have assurance frameworks and undertake accreditation reviews which may provide a starting point. The Committee indicated a need to align learning and teaching, assessment and curriculum frameworks. Learning Futures will support a proposal to employ a part time project officer to support the development of a Framework for Quality Assurance of Assessment. Such a proposal is to be developed for consideration at the next meeting.
7.1.2 Quality Reviews of Assessment In conjunction with the above, the Committee will consider initiating a variety of projects and data collection processes to review the quality of assessment. These may include:
an audit of assessment types as a pre-cursor to the implementation of the
larger EICP funded consensus moderation project incorporating a
repository of assessment items and exemplars; and
Review and compare a sample of examination instruments against the
course profile data.
7.1.3 Program and Course Learning Outcomes and Assessment Alignment The TEQSA Learning Outcomes (Coursework) Standards requires higher education providers to review and compare learning outcomes and the grading of students’ achievement against equivalent courses in other Australian institutions at least every 5 years. Compliance with this standard has implications for how universities implement academic quality processes and resources for moderation and benchmarking of assessment of student learning outcomes. A National Learning Outcomes Standards forum was held in August 2013 which identified needs in relation to developing institutional academic quality processes and resources for peer review of assessment. A follow up event Comparing learning outcomes standards: developing institutional quality processes and resources for peer
review of assessment is scheduled for the 28th February. The Deputy
Academic Registrar and the Chair will both be attending the forum. Resolution
7.2 The University Assessment Committee resolved to develop a proposal for the development of a framework for the quality assurance of assessment.
8.0 COMMUNICATION ABOUT ASSESSMENT
8.1 Assessment website The Committee proposed to consolidate web based information for staff in relation to assessment. An assessment website will be developed and will be located on the Learning and Teaching website. The website will include presentations and updates:
The recent updates to assessment policy presentation which formed part
of the ‘Developing your Course Profile’ workshops.
Short summaries of changes to Policy
A specific section for Course Convenors
A specific section for Program Convenors
The Web Information Officer for Learning Futures will be engaged to look at the web site design.
8.2 Assessment Policy Manual
It has also been identified that it would be useful to have all the policies relating to assessment in one manual. While there is no functionality for this to occur in the Policy Library, an electronic manual could potentially be compiled as part of the assessment pages on the Learning and Teaching website. There was discussion around the need for any ‘manual’ to be searchable. It was noted that there have been issues with the Griffith funnelback search engine. Significant work has gone into the weighting of search terms within the funnelback system and there have been improvements but care needs to be taken in the policy descriptions and meta-data to assure the appropriateness and usefulness of the search. There was also discussion that from this semester onwards University Assessment Committee will need to have policy changes in place and communicated much earlier to the University community, as the course profile system for semester two profiles will be available to Course Convenors from week 4 of semester one.
Resolution
8.3 The University Assessment Committee resolved to progress development of an assessment website and to facilitate the development of an online manual for assessment policies.
9.0 ASSESSMENT POLICY – CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEMESTER 2, 2014
9.1 Subsequent to Academic Committee’s December 2013 meeting the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) executively made changes to section 3.1 of the Assessment Policy for implementation in semester 1, 2014 as set out below. As Course Profile preparation for semester 1, 2014 was already in progress the following proposed addition (in bold) by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) was referred to the University Assessment Committee for consideration for a semester 2, 2014 implementation.
No course grade is to be determined solely by using a single summative item or a single form of assessment. No single summative item may account for more than two thirds of the total grade for a course. A dissertation, or other large forms of assessment (e.g. designs and inquiry based projects), are considered to be equivalent to multiple forms of assessment, however, large items of summative assessment should incorporate interim formative assessment opportunities.
9.2 In considering this proposal UAC members noted that:
a variety of assessment types allows a range of learning outcomes to be assessed while maintaining student interest.
the phrase ‘a single form of assessment’ may refer to an assessment type, therefore two selected response examinations may not be a suitable assessment regime under this policy provision.
the proposed provision No single summative item may account for more than two thirds of the total grade for a course, may simply result in an
existing summative task being divided into multiple parts and administered at different times but still in close proximity to each other.
there may be an impact on student learning if students perceive additional summative assessment tasks to meet this requirement as busywork as well as additional marking costs.
9.3 The Committee considered the proposed changes as outlined in section 9.1 and acknowledged that the Assessment Policy provides guidance for both undergraduate and postgraduate assessment and that the policy should not be so constraining or prescriptive. Quality assessment varies by discipline and needs to accommodate a diversity of assessment types and assessment plans. The Committee recommended that the entire paragraph be removed and requested that this be undertaken as an executive action by the Chair, Academic Committee.
9.4 Another provision (in bold) that has raised some issues in the preparation of
Semester 1, 2014 Course Profiles is as follows: Examinations for summative purposes are to be invigilated in accordance with the Invigilation of Examinations Policy. Tests or quizzes may be administered regularly throughout the course for formative purposes to provide students with practice and feedback on their learning or used summatively to contribute a small percentage towards the final grade. These may not require supervision by teaching staff or an invigilator. Tests or quizzes that are not invigilated shall contribute no more in total than 20% of the marks towards the final grade. Attached for the information of the Assessment Committee was the Assessment Types in Use at Griffith University (2013/0006579). The broad definition of the examination type is as follows:
Examination An examination is a formal test of a person’s knowledge or proficiency in a subject or skill (Oxford Dictionary). Examinations are more comprehensive in the scope of knowledge/skills examined than short tests or quizzes, are conducted under formal, observed conditions and are usually given at mid-semester and/or end of semester. Some Course Convenors have proposed to avoid the requirement that tests or quizzes are invigilated that they will select another assessment type in completing the Course Profile but conduct the same assessment task.
9.5 In discussions with Course Convenors it has become clear that they do not
understand an examination assessment type is to be conducted under formal, observed conditions and they do not interpret that as invigilated. There may be some improved understanding if in relation to quizzes the word ‘supervised’ or ‘observed conditions’ is used rather than invigilated.
9.6 University Assessment Committee considered whether the issue of ‘observed conditions’ is the concern, or whether it is the bigger issue of ‘certainty of authorship’ for all assessment types. A policy provision ‘requiring an appropriate range and balance of conditions under which assessment tasks are completed’ could be considered. The success of any of these policy provisions is dependent on teaching staff understanding and education.
9.7 A Deputy Head of School in reporting such responses from Course Convenors
drew attention to a gap in the University’s quality assurance processes associated with assessment indicating that while the assessment plan and changes to it require approval, no-one checks that the assessment instruments developed and administered are consistent with the assessment types specified in the Course assessment plan. Similarly there is no checking that the assessment instruments are suited to measuring the learning outcomes specified for the course and the level of the course within their program of study.
9.8 The Committee considered the issues outlined above and recommended that
the use of the term ‘supervised’ replace the use of invigilated in the section of the policy specific to quizzes.
9.9 A related issue is the following referred to the Committee by the Chair,
Programs Committee and Manager, Academic Credit Transfer. The issue relates to granting credit and establishing articulation arrangements with programs that have been taught and assessed completely online by other institutions. The Chair, Programs Committee asks UAC given that it has policy provisions and processes in place to assure examinations and quizzes undertaken in Griffith programs taught online are supervised, does it need to be assured before establishing credit and articulation arrangements with institutions domestic and international that they have similar provisions in place to certify that the qualification has been awarded with sufficient certainty about the authorship of the assessment tasks.
9.10 The Committee discussed that clarification should be sought at an institutional level about the processes for verifying student assessment. The Committee recommended that if satisfied at an institutional level that the policy provisions and processes in relation to assessment are sufficient, then articulation arrangements could be made on that basis.
9.11 The University Assessment Committee considered an analysis of academic
integrity breaches for each assessment type for semester 1, 2013 and
semester 2, 2013 (2014/0005253). A similar analysis was done for the first time in semester 2, 2012. Some points of note included:
Breaches of the examination type of assessment have decreased since
Semester 2, 2012 when127 breaches were reported, while 30 were
reported for semester 1, 2013 and 23 breaches for Semester 2, 2013.
Less instances of cheating on tests or quizzes, which generally only
contribute to a small percentage towards the final grade and are not
invigilated, than examinations which are required to be invigilated.
The Committee noted the report (2014/0005253) provided.
Resolution 9.12 The University Assessment Committee resolved to recommend to the Chair,
Academic Committee:
the following paragraph added executively after December 2013 be
removed:
No course grade is to be determined solely by using a single summative item or a single form of assessment. A dissertation, or other large forms of assessment (e.g. designs and inquiry based projects), are considered to be equivalent to multiple forms of assessment, however, large items of summative assessment should incorporate interim formative assessment opportunities.
the following amendment (in bold) to section 3.1 Tests or quizzes that are not supervised shall contribute no more in total than 20% of the marks towards the final grade
SECTION D: MATTERS NOTED, CONSIDERED OR REMAINING UNDER DISCUSSION
10.0 CHAIRS REPORT
10.1 The Chair provided the following update for noting:
University Assessment Committee Constitution and Membership The Chair welcomed new and returning members to the first meeting of the year and advised the following membership changes:
Ms Cathy McGrath is on long service leave from Friday 31 January to
Friday 13 June 2014. Ms Barbara Biviano is Acting Director Student
Administration during this period;
Mr Elliot Jones has been appointed as the student representative to the
University Assessment Committee as nominated by the Chair of the
Learning and Teaching Committee;
Professor Glenn Finger returns to the University Assessment Committee
as the Dean Learning and Teaching, AEL Group. The Committee
recorded its thanks to Associate Professor Jock MacLeod for his
contributions to the Committee while acting in the role of the Dean
Learning and Teaching;
The roles of Academic staff members with specialist expertise appointed
to the University Assessment Committee by the Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Academic) are currently vacant. Replacement members with expertise in
assessment and academic achievement standards were sought, Ray
Tedman, Mark Brimble and Ramon Shabon have been suggested,
members were asked to advise the Chair of any other recommendations
by email.
Developing your Course Profile Workshops The Chair advised that that the Course Profile Workshops recently held at Nathan and Gold Coast campuses were well received. The program provided an update on the University Assessment Policy and Course Profile requirements, as well as a series of concurrent interactive sessions focussing on designing the course; alignment and assessment; writing learning outcomes and academic integrity and TurnItIn – managing assessment submission. There have been requests for copies of presentations and consideration will be given to running similar workshops in the lead up to semester two.
Assessment Policy Update The Chair reported on the following items of business arising out of the University Assessment Committee’s (UAC) 8/2013 meeting:
UAC resolved to recommend changes to Learning and Teaching Committee for the following policies:
Examinations Policy and Procedures
Assessment Types in Use at Griffith University
Assessment Submission and Return Procedures
Adoption of the Reasonable Adjustments for Assessment – Students with
Disabilities and the withdrawal of Alternative Assessment for Students
with Disabilities Policy
The Learning and Teaching Committee approved the changes and recommended these to the Academic Committee for endorsement.
At the December 2013 Academic Committee meeting, the Assessment Policy changes as approved by the Learning and Teaching Committee were tabled for endorsement.
Academic Committee made the following recommendations:
In Section 8, Supplementary Assessment - the references to 50% or greater and 50% or more have been removed, as advice was being given to students that regardless of the pass standard for the supplementary assessment, if a student received 50% they would receive a grade of 4 for the course
In Section 7 Resubmission of Assessment – the references to 50% or greater and 50% or more have been removed, as it has the same problems associated with it as the percentages used in Supplementary assessment.
The term 'result' has also been causing some problems, so reference specific to mark or grade has been made instead.
These changes were endorsed by Academic Committee at the meeting. Following the Academic Committee meeting the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) recommended and approved the following change to the Assessment Policy for semester 1, 2014: No course grade is to be determined solely by using a single summative item or a single form of assessment. A dissertation, or other large forms of assessment (e.g. designs and inquiry based projects), are considered to be equivalent to multiple forms of assessment, however, large items of
summative assessment should incorporate interim formative assessment opportunities. Assessment Coversheets The Digitisation & Distribution, Information Management, Information Services team have developed a Word version of the current, official Assignment Cover Sheet, which enables students to easily combine with their assignments for electronic submission. Cover Sheets (both Individual and Group) will be available from the following webpage Home > Students > Exams and Assessment > Submitting
assignments, with brief instructions on how best to combine with assignments. The Digitisation & Distribution team will communicate the creation of these Word versions to all academics by way of an email to all SAOs, Blended Learning Advisors, Curriculum Coordinators, Student Success Advisor and Educational Designers before commencement of the semester.
OUA Assessment and Marks Entry Spreadsheet processes Academic Committee at its December meeting approved the transfer of student achievement standards in OUA courses to the relevant School Assessment Boards, and grades for OUA courses be awarded by the Dean (Learning & Teaching) in accordance with the University’s Assessment Policy from Semester 2, 2014.
Catering no longer available for Committee meetings Due to new organisational reporting arrangements for Academic Administration and associated budget constraints, Academic Services will no longer be able to supply catering for Committee meetings. Committee members are welcome to bring their own refreshments to meetings.
11.0 ELECTRONIC ASSESSMENT HANDLING AND GRADEBOOK PROJECT
11.1 The Electronic Assessment Handling project is responsible for the implementation of TurnItIn, a third party solution, externally hosted to the University that provides an end-to-end process of electronic assignment submission, text-matching, marking, handling and return.
11.2 At previous meetings of the University Assessment Committee some in principle decisions had been made in relation to continuing the parallel use of SafeAssign and TurnItIn for e.g. a Course Convenor is to select only one of these tools for assessment submission and text-matching for a course, different approaches cannot be used for different assessment tasks within a single course.
11.3 The project is also investigating the costs associated the Remote Assignment Printing (RAP) to Schools and INS. An options paper will be prepared for the potential phasing out of RAP at the end of semester 1, 2014.
11.4 The Committee has also previously discussed the phasing out of SafeAssign
and the change management and support activities for the full implementation of TurnItIn. The Committee at the 8/2013 Meeting recommended that the project raise the issue of additional funding to support change management and ongoing support requirements with the project board and report at the February UAC meeting. A similar request was made in relation to the Gradebook project.
11.5 Ms Tamara Pratt and Ms Kerry Young were invited to the meeting to provide
an update.
Gradebook
Final contract negotiations with BlackBoard are underway
Once signed off there is a 6-8 week development time frame and this is a
very tight time frame
Current project manager Mr Richard Markovitch is leaving and a new
project manager will need to be recruited
The semester 2 go live time frame may need to be reviewed
There are still significant change management processes required to
move this project forward. Ms Kerry Young has also been appointed as
the Change Manager for the Gradebook project
Electronic Assessment Handling
Ms Young has continued to provide training sessions for academic staff in
the use of TurnItIn including: participation in the course profile workshops
where 80% of the staff hadn’t used TurnItIn before; she is liaising with
BLA’s who are also delivering training sessions; she has provided a
session for Disability Support Services including a student and staff
perspective, at the request of course convenors has provided a session to
students who are primarily based off campus for clinical practice; the self
help documentation on the Blended Learning Site has continued to be
updated and the FAQ register is continuing to be updated.
Update statistics for usage levels will be available in March
An issue was raised – that the TII Marks overrides the marks in the
gradebook, so if you are marking in TII convenors need to understand the
configuration options. This is a known issue which needs to be
communicated to BLAs and staff. There are TII support docs and cheat
sheets available and BLAs who are assisting staff in the configuration of
the courses are aware of the issue.
Phase out of SafeAssign
The comparison case be reviewed and updated regularly. The support
costs associated with maintaining two systems will require further
investigation
RAP
The cost analysis is to be revised to include over the counter/manual
handling costs and will be forwarded to the PVC INS for advice.
12.0 OTHER BUSINESS Nil 13.0 NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Assessment Committee will be held on Monday 10 March 2014 at 1.00pm and video-conferenced between Room 2.06 Bray Centre (N54) Nathan campus and room 2.27 Information Services (L03) Logan campus, 1.04 Chancellery (G34) Gold Coast campus and room 2.37A Queensland Conservatorium, Southbank Campus.
14.0 2014 University Assessment Committee Meeting Dates Meetings are on Mondays proposed new times are indicated below. All meetings are video- conferenced.
Meeting Date Venues Time
7 April N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
5 May N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
2 June
Committee Meeting + Retreat
Venue to be confirmed
9am – 4pm
2 June N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
14 July N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
4 August N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
8 September N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
13 October N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
10 November N54_2.06 / G34_1.04 / L03_2.27 1pm – 4pm
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- Chair’s signature Date
![GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS COMMITTEE (7/2009)public-sharepoint.griffith.edu.au/sites/committee-app...Bachelor of Laws [NA, GC] (1365/1366) (2009/0007293) Programs Committee considered](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6013404454dbe327eb4d2f7d/griffith-university-programs-committee-72009public-bachelor-of-laws-na.jpg)
