academic board 06/2016 - rmit universitymams.rmit.edu.au/0fuv257h07yq1.pdfmyotherapy and remedial...

ACADEMIC BOARD06/2016

Commercial–in-Confidence

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LAND

Academic Board acknowledges the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nations as the custodians of the land onwhich RMIT University stands. We pay our respect to their elders, both past and present.

AGENDA MEETING 06 / 2016

The Chamber: Building 1, City Campus on Monday 27 June 2016, at 1PM

*Members are kindly requested to ensure their mobile phones are turned off during the meeting

NO ITEM PRESENTER ACTION

1 PROCEDURAL ITEMS

* 1.1 Attendance and welcome Chair / Secretary Information

* 1.2 Order of Business Chair Approval

1.3 Minutes: 6 June 2016 Chair Approval

1.4 2016 Agenda Planner Chair Information

2 ACTIONS ARISING

2.1 Register of outstanding actions Chair Discussion

2.2 Update on student timetabling DVC E Noting

2.3 2016 Equity admission schemes outcomes Dean, Students Noting

3 VICE-CHANCELLOR AND PRESIDENT

3.1 Report Vice-Chancellor Noting

4 STRATEGIC CONVERSATION

4.1 No items

5 STRATEGY AND GOVERNANCE

5.1 Special Consideration – Update to Academic Board VP S&G Noting

5.2 RMIT University Scorecard VP S&G Noting

6 ACADEMIC BOARD COMMITTEE MATTERS

6.1 Sub-Committee Minutes Secretary Noting

7 STUDENT MATTERS

7.1 No items

8 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1Individual Evaluation Results – Update following meeting held on 6 June 2016

Secretary Noting

8.2 Questions from members Chair Discussion

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - AGENDA

1

Academic Board 05-16 – 6 June 2016 – Minutes (Unconfirmed)

ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ACADEMIC BOARD

MINUTES OF MEETING NO 05/2016

HELD AT 1PM ON 6 JUNE 2016

BUILDING 1, LARGE BOARDROOM, CITY CAMPUS

ATTENDANCE

Chair: Professor David Hayward

Deputy Chair: Mr Keith Cowlishaw

Attendance: See Appendix 1

Secretary: Ms Amanda Way

1 PROCEDURAL ITEMS

1.1 Attendance and welcome

Apologies were noted and the Chair welcomed new members and visitors. The Chair welcomed Professor Belinda Tynan as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education and Vice-President.

1.2 Order of Business

The Board starred the following items for discussion: 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.1, 4.1, 7.1.

The Chair moved that the order of business for this meeting be approved, seconded by Claire Beale and approved by the Board.

1.3 Minutes of Meeting 2 May 2016

Academic Board approved for signing as a correct record the minutes of meeting 04/2016 held on 2 May 2016.

1.4 2016 Agenda Planner

Noted.

2 ACTIONS ARISING

2.1 Register of outstanding actions

Research Integrity: the revised policy was scheduled to come to the next Academic Board meeting

Myotherapy and Remedial Massage: see item 2.8

Digital infrastructure: all existing lecture spaces will be fitted with new lecture capture devices by the start of Semester 2. Further expansion will be discussed at a future meeting.

Timetabling : a report will come to the next board meeting

No assessment over 50%: a report will come to the next board meeting.

2.2 New program BP313 Bachelor of Business (Financial Planning) / Bachelor of Business (Accountancy) and new Melbourne on-campus offering of BP314 BBus(FinPlan)

The Board approved:

1. the introduction of a new program, BP313 Bachelor of Business (Financial Planning) /

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - PROCEDURAL ITEMS

2


Bachelor of Business (Accountancy), for implementation from the first teaching period after 1 January 2017, in Melbourne.

2. a new Melbourne offering of BP314 Bachelor of Business (Financial Planning), for implementation from the first teaching period after 1 January 2017.

The Board agreed that current processes requiring assessment to be specified for three years was out-dated and would be re-evaluated.

2.3 Proposed Property Electives for PCPM PhD (Built Environment)

The Board approved the two proposed property electives (attached) for the PhD (Built Environment) program code (DR212).

2.4 Clustered or Nested Qualifications

The Board noted the models for clustered or nested qualifications that are recognised by the Australian Qualifications Framework and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). It was agreed that the inclusion of nested degrees in a more explicit way , and particularly the inclusion of nested programs in the “opt out” model helped clarify RMIT’s complex pathway qualifications, provided a simpler and more marketable program structure, and addressed number retention challenges faced by RMIT.

2.5 2016 ARC Linkage Project and Industrial Transformation Training Centres funding outcomes briefing

The Board noted RMIT’s outcomes in the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Project and the Industrial Transformation Training Centres (ITTC) schemes. The DVC R&I noted that three factors impacted on RMIT grant success rates:

∑ The quality of the grant teams proposed∑ RMIT’s co-investment ratio∑ Clarity around the path to impact.

The Board considered how RMIT measures success, and whether that discourages emerging researchers from applying to grants as a result.

External expert advice was being obtained to review RMIT’s grant submissions with a view to improving outcomes.

2.6 RMIT Consultation process for a submission to the ARC Engagement and Impact Assessment Consultation

The Board noted that:1) the ARC has opened the consultation period regarding the forthcoming national

research engagement and impact assessment exercise;2) RMIT is conducting an internal stakeholder consultation process to inform the

development of the university’s submission to the consultation; and3) Research Committee considered and discussed this matter at its 16 May meeting and

members were asked to provide written feedback to R&I by June 6.

2.7 RMIT submission to Research Block Grant (RGB) consultation

The Board noted that:1) the Department of Education and Training opened the consultation period regarding

changes to the Research Block Grants; 2) RMIT is conducting a targeted internal stakeholder consultation process to inform the

development of the university’s submission to the consultation, including consideration by Research Committee which took place on 16 May;


3


3) this internal consultation and submission to the Commonwealth is unrelated to any subsequent consideration of changes to RMIT policies and procedures related to RBGs; and

4) an R&I representative will present RBG outcomes information for discussion at Academic Board in Q4 2016.

2.8 Report back on issues relating to myotherapy, remedial massage programs and chiropractic techniques including manipulation of infants

RMIT offers three nationally recognised programs relating to massage and myotherapy – each regulated by government frameworks. The Board heard that in some instances a program may be nationally accredited but without firm scientific evidence to show they produce the effects claimed, although there may be other evidence to support them being taught (e.g. consumers stating that the therapy was effective for them). The Chair agreed to pick the matter up outside the meeting in discussion with the DVCE and other key internal stakeholders.

2.9 Delivery of Master of Architecture at RMIT University Vietnam

The Board noted that the Master of Architecture will be offered at the Vietnam campus commencing Semester 1, 2017 (Vietnam). The DVCE noted the recent streamlining of the process for offering currently approved programs at different locations - this now simply required PVC approval. Further discussion would take place to remove bureaucratic steps relating to the offering of currently approved programs via new media and formats.

2.10 Professional accreditation overview at RMIT

The Board noted the Professional accreditation at RMIT: extract overview report.

2.11 Report on Chair’s Visit to Vietnam (May 2016)

The Board noted the report on the Chair’s visit to Vietnam.

3 VICE-CHANCELLOR AND PRESIDENT

3.1 Report

The Vice-Chancellor planned to provide a fuller report at the Board’s June 27 meeting which would include a progress update on RMIT’s digital education initiatives. In the meantime he noted priorities around improving service provision to students (including timetabling), and a focus on the provision of pastoral care to students in an extensive and meaningful way.

4 STRATEGIC CONVERSATION

4.1 Deregulation, markets and tertiary education: lessons for regulators from Australia's vocational education reform program

Michael Lavarch AO, ASQA Commissioner provided background information and context about the operation of the Australian Skills Quality Authority in Australia noting the following elements for success:

∑ Public policy clarity: between the Commonwealth and the states to provide a clear understanding of what the VE sector should achieve

∑ Consistent policy architecture∑ A model for sustainable funding for the sector from both public and private sources∑ Clarify the role of effective regulation.

RMIT was recognised as a large provider of VE in Australia, and well-placed to look at education in an holistic way and to meet its challenging needs.

ASQA recognised RMIT as well governed/regulated and low risk and had offered RMIT a


4


delegation allowing it to alter its scope of registration without reference to ASQA accordingly.

Moving forward, offshore operations – including RMIT’s – would increasingly come under scrutiny by the regulator.

Mr Lavarch accepted the Chair’s offer to attend another Academic Board session in the future.

4.2 Net Promoter Score (Students) survey

Academic Board noted the overview of the concept and approach for the introduction of a Net Promoter Score for RMIT initially focusing on Melbourne, Vietnam and Singapore.

5 STRATEGY AND GOVERNANCE

No items

6 ACADEMIC BOARD COMMITTEE MATTERS

6.1 Committee minutes

The Board noted the confirmed minutes of the Research Committee meeting of 18 April 2016.

The Board noted the unconfirmed minutes of the Education Committee meeting of 10 May2016 and noted the discontinuation of the following programs and plans:

∑ Discontinuation of Plan: BP187P9 Bachelor of Health Science (Chiropractic) (with active students)

∑ Discontinuation of Program: BP242 Bachelor of Engineering (Environmental Engineering)/Bachelor of Arts (International Studies) (with active students)

Discontinuation of Plan: MC004 Master of Applied Science (Statistics and Operations Research) (Zero active Students).

7 STUDENT MATTERS

7.1 Report on SSCC Student Leadership Summit

The Board noted the report, commenting on the value of addressing issues on a University-wide basis, and noted that an update would be provided at the August meeting.

8 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 Individual Evaluation Results – Update following meeting held on 2 May 2016

The Board noted the feedback provided following the 2 May 2016 meeting.

8.2 Questions from members

CHAIR:

DATE:


5


Appendix 1 – Attendance

Ex Officio Members Represented by

Chancellor Dr Ziggy Switkowski Apology Janet Latchford

Vice-Chancellor and President Martin Bean Present

Vice-President, Resources Steve Somogyi Present

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Education Prof Belinda Tynan Present

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research & Innovation

Prof Calum Drummond Present

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, International

Prof Andrew MacIntyre Present

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Engagement & Voc Educ

John Barnes Present

Pro Vice-Chancellor Science Eng & Health

Prof Peter Coloe Present

Pro Vice-Chancellor Design and Social Context

Prof Paul Gough Present

Pro Vice-Chancellor Business Prof Ian Palmer Present

Deputy Dean, Learning and Teaching

A/Prof Zosh Pawlaczek Present

Dean, Students Prof Owen Hughes Present

Dean, School of Graduate Research

Prof Denise Cuthbert Present

Executive Director, Vocational Education

Keith Cowlishaw Present

University Librarian Deirdre Gillespie Present

Academic Registrar Dr Maddy McMaster Present

Vice-President Strategy and Governance

Dr Loren Miller Present

Nominee of the Vice-Chancellor Claire Beale Present

Director of Research Institute Prof Xinghuo Yu Apology Prof Stephen Teo

President RMIT Vietnam or nominee

Prof Beverley Webster Present

President, RMIT Student Union Ariel Zohar Apology

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander academic

A/Prof Aunty Kerrie Doyle Present

Elected members Represented by

Graham Airey Present

Alex Borsato Present

Ella Caulfield Present

Prof Caroline Chan Present


6


Dr Daryl D’Souza Present

Alain Grossbard Present

Dr Ejanul Haque Apology

Prof David Hayward Present

Prof Robyn Healy Present

Paul Hoac Present

Dr Jeff Hughes Present

Dr Amanda Kimpton Present

A/ Prof Shona Leitch Present

Theresa Lyford Present

Dr Srinivasan Madapusi Present

Andre Martin Present

Prof Adrian Mouritz Present

Carl Melkonian Apology

Peter Murphy Present

Dr Kerry Mullan Present

Dr Caroline Norma Present

Dr Tim O’Shannassy Present

A/ Prof Melih Ozlen Present

Alan Padgham Present

Michelle Rennie Present

Peter Ryan Apology

Prof Supriya Singh Present

Prof Pauline Stanton Present

Prof Rob Strathdee Present

Dr Alex Wake Present

Carey Walden Present

Dr Jessica Wilkinson Present

Prof Charlie Xue Present

Prof Irene Yarovsky Present

In attendanceSue BoltA/Prof Andrea ChesterCaspar CummingMichael ElliottSarah FirthMichelle Hoodbhoy


7


Jane McLellan (item 4.1)Paul Oppenheimer (item 2.1)Amanda Way (Secretary)


8

January 1‐Feb 7‐Mar 4‐Apr 2‐May 6‐Jun 27‐Jun 1‐Aug 5‐Sep 3‐Oct 31‐Oct 5‐Dec

(no meeting) (01/16) (02/16) (03/16) (04/16) (05/16) (06/16) (07/16) (08/16) (09/16) (10/16) (11/16)

Program Administration (Ms Carey Walden)

STRATEGY WEEK – Reflection on strategy

Branch campus criteria (DVC I)

Group Work (Student members)

Innovations in assessment practice (TBC)

Entry requirements (DVC A and DVC I)

Casual Academic Workforce (DVC E)

Presentation by RMIT Vietnam Library

RMIT’s ERA 2015 Results (DVC R&I)

ARC Linkage and Industrial Transformation Training Centres

Outcomes (DVC R&I)

Enabling Capability Platforms (DVC R&I)

Consultation regarding ARC Engagement and Impact Assessment and Research Block Grants (DVC R&I)

Ethics and Integrity Policy(VP S&G)

Research Policy (DVC R&I)

Student feedback ‐ including International Student Barometer

(VP S&G and DVC EVE)

Programs and courses policy (DVC E)

Complaints Policy (VP S&G)

Admission and Credit Policy (DVC E)

The health of the disciplines at RMIT

Report back on issues relating to chiropractic techniques (PVC SEH)

InclusionProposed metrics for Disability Liaison Unit

(Dean, Students)

Proposed metrics for Disability Liaison Unit (Dean,

Students)

Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Honours) (BH121)

Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Sciences (BP311)

Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management (with nested Diploma of Tourism and Hospitality Management)

Program approval process for RMIT Vietnam (DVC A)

VE private providers – issues and lessons learned (ED VE)

Review of RMIT’s academic risk profile (DVC A)

Update on TESQA re‐registration (VP Strategy & Governance)

Guest speaker –Commissioner Lavarche (ASQA) Topic: Deregulation,

markets and tertiary education: lessons for regulators from Australia's

vocational education reform program

Guest speaker – Dr Michael Tomlinson, TEQSA

Role of Academic Board in reviews (discipline based)

Academic Board to Council Report to Council

Research Committee Minutes (November Meeting) Minutes (December Meeting) Minutes (February Meeting)Minutes (March Meeting)

Annual ReportWorkplan 2016

Minutes (April Meeting) Minutes (May Meeting) Minutes (June Meeting) Minutes (July Meeting) Minutes (August Meeting) Minutes (September Meeting) Minutes (October Meeting)

Education Committee Minutes (December Meeting) Minutes (February Meeting) Minutes (March Meeting) Minutes (April Meeting) Minutes (May Meeting) Minutes (June Meeting) Minutes (July Meeting) Minutes (August Meeting) Minutes (September Meeting) Minutes (October Meeting) Minutes (November Meeting)

RMIT VietnamMid‐year report (VP Academic Vietnam)

End‐of‐year report (VP Academic Vietnam)

Induction and electionsInduction session for new members (Secretariat)

Induction follow up session for new members (Secretariat)

ELECTION OF CHAIR AND DEPUTY CHAIR (Secretariat)

ELECTIONS (Secretariat) ELECTIONS (Secretariat)Induction end of year session for

new members (Secretariat)

EvaluationDraft evaluation tool

(Secretariat)Complete evaluation during Board meeting (Secretariat)

Results of 2016 evaluation activities (Secretariat)

Items shown in green text are completed

Enrepreneurship and Innovation

Outcomes of Academic Integrity Working Part

(Working Party plus Tracy Bretag, UniSA)

RMIT response to the impact agenda (DVC R&I)

Strategic conversations

Academic Integrity in a Digital Age (DVC E)

Reconciliation Action Plan

Report on ARC and NHMRC outcomes (DVC R&I)

Higher Degrees by Research Policy (Dean, SGR)

Research Integrity ‐ reflection on recent scandals regarding

industry funded research (DVC R&I)

Vocational Education Funding Review (ED VE)

RUSU priorities for 2016

Teaching and Learning Infrastructure report

(including Blackboard) (DVC A)Teaching and Learning

Conferral and Graduation Policy (DVC A) ‐ withdrawn, to be tabled at May

meeting

Report on research integrity (annual) (DVC R&I)

Mem

ber

Matters

Reviews

Regulatory environment

Academic integrity

Repo

rting

Hot Top

ics ‐ The

mes

Digital innovations

Special Consideration (part of new Assessment Policy) (VP Strategy &

Governance)

Scholarships and Prizes Policy (ARG)

Vision for digitally enabled learning (DVC A & Learning Futures Working Group)

Report from Learning and Teaching Innovation Team (A

Chester/Spiros Soulis)

Teaching and Learning Infrastructure report (including

Blackboard) (DVC A)

Pathway opportunities for VCE Programs

(Rob Strathdee)

Academic Board Agenda Planner 2016

Program approvals

National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) briefing paper (DVC R&I)

Key findings of Research Performance, Health and Wellbeing Report (DVC R&I)

New approach to Special Consideration (VP S&G)

Assessment Policy (DVC E)

Assessment Policy (DVC E)

Research, innovation and impact

Employability

Top 200 Project Update (DVC A)

Enrolment Policy (DVC A)

Conferral and Graduation Policy (DVC A)

Course structure model – UWA and The University of Melbourne

(DVC A)

Student experience (Panel discussion featuring Charlotte

Williams and others)

RMIT's digital agenda (VC)

To be allocated

Privacy and Information Management Policy (DVC A, DVC R&I, VP Strategy & Governance)

Update on status of accreditations (Colleges) (DVC A and PVCs)

Report on Graduate Futures and Careers Project (DVC E)

Net Promoter Score (Survey Services Centre) (VP Strategy & Governance)

Report from Learning and Teaching Innovation Team (A Chester/Spiros Soulis)

Student Conduct Policy (DVC E) Update on "no assessment

over 50%" (DVC E)Report back on SSCC Forum

(Student members)

External Review ‐ invite Chair of Academic Board from other university to observe RMIT Academic

Board (Chris Hickey, Deakin University)

Open access (DVC E and RMIT Library)

Update on introduction of "in program" requirements

for teacher education (Rob Strathdee)


9

Item 2.1

Submission to Academic Board

TITLE Register of Outstanding Actions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This standing item of the agenda is revised after each meeting of the Board and provides a record of all items deferred or referred for further consideration and response.

The Register has been updated to include actions arising from discussions at the Board on 6 June 2016.

Actions marked as completed will be removed from the next iteration of the Register.

The Board is asked to review the details and status of outstanding items of business.

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION BY ACADEMIC BOARD

N/A

DISCUSSION/RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

Register of Outstanding Actions

Submitted by:

Name: Professor David Hayward

Title: Chair, Academic Board

Date: 13 June 2016

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - ACTIONS ARISING

10

Status Key: On track Requires focus At riskG Y R

ACADEMIC BOARD:Summary of outstanding actions Updated after meeting: 6 June 2016

# Meeting Reference Responsibility Description Due date Status

11-15 (3)

7 December 2015

Presentation by Disability Liaison Unit

Rick Boffa

Rick Boffa to report back on possible metrics relating to DLU activities that the Board could track in 2016.

Update – to be considered by Education Committee prior to submission to Academic Board

AugustReferred to Education Committee

11-15 (5)

7 December 2015

Timetabling DVC EDVC E to report back on issue with timetabling system and plan to resolve issues in early 2016.

Update – report to be tabled at 27 June meeting

Q1

2016

Complete –see item

2.2

01-16 (1)

1 February 2016

University Appeals DVC E with student members

DVC E to meet with student members to discuss the appeals process and incorporate activities to reduce the number of appeals within the Academic Portfolio workplan.

Q3

2016

01-16 (3)

1 February 2016

ERA DVC R&IDVC R&I to provide Academic Board with update on arrangements for ERA 2018

Q3

2016

01-16 (4)

1 February 2016

Research Block Grants DVC R&IDVC R&I to provide Academic Board with update on changes to the Research Block Grant system and rankings (N.B. due date amended in line with changes to Government consultation timetable)

Q4

2016

01-16 (5)

1 February 2016

RMIT Scorecard VC VC to table University Scorecard at future Academic Board meeting Q2 2016Complete –

see item 4.1

02-16 (3)

7 March 2016

Review of Special Consideration scheme

DVC EDVC E and University Secretariat to refine proposal of light of feedback and further consultation with key stakeholders.

May 2016

03-16 (1)

4 April 2016 No assessment over 50% DVC EDVC E to progress work relating to “no assessment over 50%” and report back to the Board.

Q2

03-16 (2)

4 April 2016In program requirements for teacher education

Professor Rob Strathdee

Professor Rob Strathdee to report back to the Board on issues relating to the introduction of “in program” requirements for teacher education programs.

Q3

04-16 (2)

2 May 2016 Academic Risk ProfileProfessor Peter Coloe

Professor Peter Coloe to report back to the Board on issues highlighted by media coverage of chiropractic techniques including manipulation of infants,

June 2016

Complete

G

G

G

Y

Y

G


11

Status Key: On track Requires focus At riskG Y R

# Meeting Reference Responsibility Description Due date Status

promotion of anti-vaccination and over-claiming the benefits of treatments.

04-16 (4)

2 May 2016 Open Access DVC E and RMIT Library

DVC E and RMIT Library to lead strategic conversation on open access.August 2016

04-16 (5)

2 May 2016Australian Graduate Survey National Results VP S&G

Vice-President Strategy & Governance agreed to report back to the Board on:

∑ possible drivers of improvement among the “most improved” institutions;

∑ result for international offshore students; and∑ results for Vocational Education students.

Update – to be tabled at 1 August meeting

August 2016

04-16 (6)

2 May 2016 TEQSA M HoohbhoyCompliance, Regulation and Reporting Team to deliver special session on the new Standards for Board members.

August 2016

04-16 (7)

2 May 2016New Award: FS017 Foundation Studies on City Campus

Professor Rob Strathdee

Professor Rob Strathdee to report back to the Board on pathway opportunities for VCE programs.

Q3, 2016

04-16 (8)

2 May 2016Developing our learning ecosystem

A Chester / S Soulis

A/Professor Andrea Chester / Spiros Soulis to report back to the Board on the work of the Learning and Teaching Innovation Team in Q3 and Q4.

Q3 and Q4 2016

05-16 (1)

6 June 2016

Issues relating to myotheraphy, remedial massage programs and chiropractic techniques

Chair / DVC EChair and DVC E to discuss issues further with key internal stakeholders and report back to the Board at a future meeting.

Q3, 2016 NEW

05-16 (2)

6 June 2016Out-dated approach to specifying assessment

DVC ECurrent processes requiring assessment to be specified for three years to be re-evaluated.

Q3, 2016 NEW

05-16 (3)

6 June 2016Presentation by ASQA Commissioner

Chair / Secretary

Chair to invite ASQA Commissioner, the Honourable Michael Lavarch AO, to attend another Board meeting in the future.

Q2, 2016 NEW

G

G

G

G

G


12


TITLE Update on Student Timetabling

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Issues

RMIT’s current approach to developing student timetables involves complex and resource intensive processes with limited standardisation and co-ordinated activity, leading to a poor experience for both students and staff.

The 2016 introduction of a Constraint Driven Timetable (CDT) methodology (trialled in 2015) sought to improve outcomes for students and staff and improve the frequency of use of learning and teaching spaces. The 2016 Utilisation Study, recently performed by the Property Services Group, found the instance of “booked and not used space” had reduced by 9.3% (from 28% in Semester 1 2015 to 18.7% in Semester 1 2016).

Insights from the recent Simplicity Project diagnostic:

• In Semester 1 2016 there were a total of 13,804 staff initiated changes between December 2015 (student timetable publication) and 1 April 2016 (post-census date) as follows.

Staff Initiated changes Higher Ed % Change

Vocational Ed % Change

S1 2015 S1 2016 S1 2015 S1 2016

TOTAL 4604 7153 36% 4184 6651 37%

NB: A small percentage of the volume increases can be attributed to building works. Late government program package changes have contributed to the increased VE figures.

• During 2015, 14% of prospective student enquiries to RMIT InfoCorner were in relation to class schedules, highlighting the need for a reliable timetable to enable students to make plans (eg, to arrange paid employment).

• The timetable development process is complex and largely manual, requiring a significant investment in time for academic and teaching staff.

The diagnostic analysis identified a number of opportunities for improvement:

• Student experience focus – adopt alternative approaches to timetabling to create a more meaningful, engaging and student-centred timetable and increase staff awareness and understanding of the student impact of changes to the student timetable post publication such as location, day and time.

• Planning and management controls – strengthen the planning inputs and controls to support the development of a reliable, accurate and stable timetable, including the introduction of service expectations, metrics and clear ownership and accountability within the university.

• Online and automated workflow – take advantage of available technologies to simplify and automate manual processes, including enhancing the user interfaces for a more relevant, accessible experience for our students.

• Resource utilisation and productivity – reduce the manual and time-consuming effort required to plan, develop and manage the timetable and improve utilisation of our physical assets through reducing artificial demand on space and gridlock

• Governance – establish clear governance arrangements to facilitate a structured, standardised


13

and timely student-centred timetable.

Next steps

Addressing these areas to design the best student centred timetable will require further planning and development. The following improvements provide short to medium term enhancements to the timetable for Semester 2 2016 and throughout 2017.

• Initiate activities to increase the focus and awareness on the impact to the student experience arising from timetable changes, address the manual approaches to submitting and approving these requests and reduce the negative impacts of a changing timetable via:

a. Issuance of a “hard deadline” for all staff changes to Semester 2, 2016 timetables to provide stability to students, enable Timetabling Services to adjust resources to focus on delivering student assistance during re-enrolment and facilitate management of changes that are required.

b. Investigate (following the RMIT Vietnam pilot currently underway) the “preference model” and suitable options for students to submit and review their forthcoming timetable.

c. Standardise the change request form currently used, streamlining the University’s approach to address changes and minimise instances of high impact changes to students.

d. Commencement of the design of an automated service tool for change requests (eg: ‘Service Now’ or a similar option) to automate approvals, reduce turn-around time and minimise instances of change activity adversely impacting students.

• Improve the collection and quality of requirements gathering used as input to develop the timetable via:

a. Template developed to standardise information gathered across the University for populating andrelease of timetable.

b. Review of instances of students travelling between two campuses within a single day and current mitigation and management processes in place including transport options. Solutions to mitigate immediate impacts recommended for implementation.

c. Development of long term ‘single source tool’ to automate, capture and enable academic administrative work to be completed in a single portal, facilitating review and approval with increased transparency.

• Improve course enrolment forecast accuracy for timetable development via:a. Identification of accountable business owner of course enrolment forecast data and implement

accountability lines for monitoring enrolments against class requests creating a transparent timetable capacity overview. Schools and Timetabling Services could monitor capacity limit changes and address any overruns before they become an issue for students.

b. Development of an end-to-end forecasting system.c. Structure a deadline for amendments beyond the first year. First year forecasts will continue to

be fluid in terms of numbers however, years 2 onwards should be easily predicted in forecasting and modelling.

• Publish clear expectations in relation to timetabling inputs and timings to improve quality and responsiveness of timetable publication and reduce timetable changes post publication with longer term development of business rules and accountability.

In summary, improving the student experience of timetabling requires a long-term investment and strategic approach. The focus is on creating a meaningful, engaging and relevant timetable experience that is student centred and incorporates approaches to class registration for all student cohorts, program complexity and clash free scheduling. Additionally, a well-defined end-to-end timetable service with clear service accountability, supported by effective online and automated workflow and clear expectations for our academic and professional workforce will be developed.

At its 3 October, 2016 meeting the Board will receive a report outlining the recommended path for student timetabling for 2017 and beyond.


14

Recommendations (including action Academic Board must take)

It is recommended that Academic Board note this paper.

Timing of Decisions

N/A

Further Information

N/A

Communication and Confidentiality

This report is not confidential to Academic Board members.

REMAINDER OF PAPER


The Simplicity Project diagnostic recently undertaken has identified a number of improvement opportunities to our student timetabling processes. The current timetable development process is a complex and largely manual process that results in a poor experience for students.

Students are impacted by: • Timetable information not being made available early enough.• Unreliable timetable information, with significant changes being made after publication and

during the class registration period.• Activities scheduled at unsuitable times and/or locations.

With an increasing move towards blended and digital learning, consideration must be given to the best way to deliver programs and courses to ensure a positive student experience that is fit for purpose, enhanced and facilitates learning and is suitable for student needs.

Case studies of a sample of Australian universities recently undertaken has identified the following key insights:

∑ An historical trend of fragmented approaches to timetable publication with a current move towards a more streamlined end-to-end management approach;

∑ A mix of centralised and decentralised models for management and accountability of space management;

∑ Minimal to no direct student experience metrics or monitoring for ongoing improvements;∑ Differing approaches to software and tools to enhance reporting and forecasting

opportunity;∑ A shift towards automated systems for management of forecasting and single source data

collection to enhance the quality of input data and timetable drafts and publication;∑ Limited availability of market interfacing software to manage an end-to-end process. Some

instances where Allocate Plus is in use;∑ No single recommendation for holistic fix.


See above


15


The financial investments required to implement any proposed changes will be articulated through the development of a business case.

INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

If improvements to student timetabling within RMIT are not delivered in a timely manner, there is a risk of student engagement declining, leading to increased attrition, reduced enrolments and reputational damage to RMIT.

ATTACHMENTS

N/A

Submitted by:

Name: Professor Belinda Tynan

Title: Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Education

Date: 15 June 2016


16

of 2


TITLE 2016 Equity admission schemes outcomes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Issues

The RMIT Strategic Plan to 2020 outlines a commitment to welcome students from diverse backgrounds and be an accessible and open institution dedicated to serving the needs of the whole community.

Accordingly, the University has established aspirations and targets for participation of students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students through the 2016 University Scorecard.

This paper will evaluate the effectiveness of equity admissions programs for improving the participation of low SES, Indigenous and other equity group students.

Key findings

∑ The SNAP and SEAS access schemes make a significant contribution towards increasing the access of low SES and Indigenous students from schools with which we have a commitment and that represent the most disadvantaged schools and communities.

∑ The overall proportion of HE VTAC commencing students who are low SES is 15%, up 1 percentage point from 2015, while slightly short of the 2016 target that 15.7% of commencing domestic students will be from low SES backgrounds.

∑ The overall proportion of low SES VE VTAC commencing students who are low SES is 19%, down 3 percentage points on 2015, marginally above the target.

∑ About half of these low SES commencing students are admitted through the SNAP access scheme.

∑ The overall enrolment proportion of VTAC HE enrolments who are Indigenous is 0.53% and for VE 0.93%, more than half the 2016 target.

Actions and improvements identified through the analysis

It is recommended that the University continue to analyse the implementation and outcomes from its school partnerships and admissions practices, in order to identify any impact on University Scorecard targets to improve access for low SES and Indigenous students, along with other equity group students.

The Equity and Diversity Unit will engage with ARG, Marketing and Recruitment, Colleges and Schools to review and improve:

∑ Equity admissions schemes: Various Diversity and Inclusion Action Plans soon to be submitted to the VCE commit the University to a review of equity admissions schemes to identify ways to improve access for low SES, Indigenous, and other equity group students. RMIT recently engaged a VTAC statistician to undertake a review of our SEAS and SNAP schemes, and this proposal has since broadened to include other Victorian universities and their equity admissions schemes. This work should provide a rich source of data to inform our future proposals.

∑ Implementation of schemes including selection practices: We will seek to improve uniformity of practice by developing guidelines and providing other advice to support selection staff in operationalizing the current bonus practice for the equity admissions schemes across Colleges,


17

of 2

Schools and programs.

∑ Outcomes for students admitted through equity admissions schemes including academic achievement: The progress, success and retention of students admitted through RMIT SNAP will be compared annually with students admitted without equity admissions consideration. (It should be noted that this is ongoing work – the data reveals that the cohort does just as well when compared to domestic students. Success data for 2014 shows SNAP commencing student successrate is equal to that of non-SNAP students with a pass rate of 85%.)

Recommendations

The Selection and Admissions Advisory Group is asked to note the outcomes of the 2015-2016 equity admissions schemes outcomes report.

Timing of Decisions

Not applicable

Further Information


Not confidential.

REMAINDER OF PAPER

BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION



INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

ATTACHMENTS

Paper - 2016 Equity Admissions Schemes

Submitted by:Professor Owen Hughes

Dean, Students

Date: 10 June 2016


18

1 of 19

Equity Admissions SchemesSemester 1 2016 summary of outcomes

May 2016

Executive summary

RMIT’s social inclusion programs for students aim to increase access to further education, build a more diverse student population, and provide an equitable and inclusive experience for all students.

These aims are based on the commitments in Ready for life and work: RMIT Strategic Plan to 2020 to welcome students from diverse backgrounds and be an accessible and open institution dedicated to serving the needs of the whole community.

Accordingly, the University has established aspirations and targets for participation of students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students through the 2016 University Scorecard.

The key measures are:

Student access Ref Key Performance Indicator 2016

Target2020 aspirations

KPI 9

% of commencing domestic students from low SES backgrounds (HE and VE)

HE -15.7%VE – 18.3%

Match the performance of leading Australian institutions and exceed the national (HE) or state (VE) average

KPI 10

% of commencing domestic students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds (HE and VE)

HE - 0.65%VE - 1.19%

Be equal to or greater than state average(HE and VE)

This paper will evaluate the effectiveness and contribution of equity admissions programs to improving the participation of students from low SES backgrounds and other equity groups.

I. School Network Access Program (SNAP)

The Schools Network Access Program (SNAP) is the University’s flagship social inclusion outreach partnership with selected secondary schools, encompassing I Belong, a suite of on-campus programs for students, and a well-established priority access scheme.

The SNAP Access Scheme is RMIT’s principal mechanism for increasing enrolments from students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Under the SNAP access scheme, a student’s ATAR achievement is considered alongside a school-based assessment of their potential for academic success. SNAP students with their school's endorsement receive priority access toRMIT's degree and diploma programs in the form of a significant re-rank on their ATAR (up to 20 bonus ATAR points), and equivalent extra consideration for programs that select on a range of criteria.

In response to College feedback about the need to expand the pool of SNAP applicants to increase low SES and Indigenous enrolments, in 2016 58 new schools with similar socio-economic disadvantage, including a new requirement for a minimum 5% Indigenous student representation, were invited to join the SNAP partnership.

The addition of new schools to the SNAP partnership appears to have contributed to the increase in the number of SNAP preferences for RMIT programs, which in turn contributed to the increase in SNAP offers and enrolments in Colleges.


19

2 of 19

2016 SNAP outcomes:

∑ The number of individuals applying for RMIT courses through SNAP increased by 30% on previous year∑ 1746 SNAP students enrolled in degree and vocational education programs, an increase of 28% on previous year∑ The number of enrolments below the clearly in represented 15% of all VTAC enrolments, equal to the previous year.

SNAP outcomes- enrolment of SNAP students with an ATAR below the “clearly in”

To increase low SES participation through higher SNAP offers and enrolments, in 2012 the University determined that 20% of commencing students should comprise SNAP applicants with an ATAR score below the “clearly in”, in recognition that the ATAR reflects patterns of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage.

For 2016 selection, all Colleges increased the proportion of SNAP enrolments from the previous year, with the following percentage of SNAP enrolments below the clearly in:

o Business: 17% of enrolments, near to meeting the target with a shortfall of 3%. o DSC: 13% of enrolments, an improvement on 2015 where 9% of enrolments were below the clearly ino SEH: 15% of enrolments, a 5% shortfall.

II. VTAC Special Entry Access Scheme

RMIT participates in the VTAC Special Entry Access Scheme (SEAS) to provide consideration for adverse circumstances that affected an applicant’s education. SEAS allows RMIT selection staff to compensate for educational disadvantage by applying a bonus of up to 20 ATAR points. One of the aims of the access scheme is to improve the number of students who gain access to an RMIT program, specifically applicants from equity group backgrounds who may otherwise not have received an offerbecause they had an ATAR below the “clearly in”. For 2016:

∑ Offers to SEAS low SES applicants with an ATAR below the clearly in represented 24% of all VTAC offers below the clearly in, 1 percentage point down on the previous year.

∑ Offers to SEAS applicants seeking consideration for disability with an ATAR below the clearly in represented just over half (51%) of all VTAC offers below the clearly in, equivalent to last year.

III. Progress against the University Scorecard targets for 2016

The SNAP and SEAS access schemes make a significant contribution towards increasing the access of low SES and Indigenous students from schools with which we have a commitment and that represent the most disadvantaged schools and communities.

For low SES student access in 2016:

All VTAC enrolments:

∑ The overall proportion of HE VTAC commencing students who are low SES is 15%, up 1 percentage point from 2015, while slightly short of the 2016 target that 15.7% of commencing domestic students will be from low SES backgrounds.

∑ The overall proportion of low SES VE VTAC commencing students who are low SES is 19%, down 3 percentage points on 2015, marginally above the target.

SNAP enrolments:∑ SNAP low SES HE enrolments represent nearly half (48%) of all low SES HE VTAC enrolments (up 6 percentage points)∑ SNAP low SES VE enrolments represent more than half (53%) of all VE VTAC enrolments, up 11 percentage points on

2015

SEAS enrolments:

∑ SEAS low SES HE enrolments represent 21% of all low SES HE VTAC enrolments


20

3 of 19

∑ SEAS low SES VE enrolment represent 20% of all low SES VE VTAC enrolments

For Indigenous student access in 2016:

All VTAC enrolments

∑ The overall enrolment proportion of VTAC HE enrolments who are Indigenous is 0.53% and for VE 0.93%, more than half the 2016 target.

SNAP

∑ SNAP HE Indigenous enrolments represent 21% of all Indigenous HE VTAC enrolments∑ SNAP VE Indigenous enrolments represent 33% of all Indigenous VE VTAC enrolments

SEAS

∑ SEAS HE Indigenous enrolments represent more than half (79%) of all Indigenous HE VTAC enrolments∑ SEAS VE Indigenous enrolments represent more than half (67%) of all Indigenous VE VTAC enrolments

We note that Indigenous applicants may apply through the RMIT Indigenous Access Scheme which supports entry into RMIT programs through a priority non-competitive selection process. This is reported by the Ngarara Willim Centre.

IV. Actions and improvements identified through the analysis

It is recommended that the University continue to analyse the implementation and outcomes from its school partnerships and admissions practices, in order to identify any impact on University Scorecard targets to improve access for low SES and Indigenous students, along with other equity group students.

The Equity and Diversity Unit will engage with ARG, Marketing and Recruitment, Colleges and Schools to review and improve:

∑ Equity admissions schemes: Various Diversity and Inclusion Action Plans soon to be submitted to the VCE commit the University to a review of equity admissions schemes to identify ways to improve access for low SES, Indigenous, and other equity group students. RMIT recently engaged a VTAC statistician to undertake a review of our SEAS and SNAP schemes, and this proposal has since broadened to include other Victorian universities and their equity admissions schemes. This work should provide a rich source of data to inform our future proposals.

∑ Implementation of schemes including selection practices: We will seek to improve uniformity of practice by developing guidelines and providing other advice to support selection staff in operationalizing the current bonus practice for the equity admissions schemes across Colleges, Schools and programs.

∑ Outcomes for students admitted through equity admissions schemes including academic achievement: The progress, success and retention of students admitted through RMIT SNAP will be compared annually with students admitted without equity admissions consideration. (It should be noted that this is ongoing work – the data reveals that the cohort does just as well when compared to domestic students. Success data for 2014 shows SNAP commencing student success rate is equal to that of non-SNAP students with a pass rate of 85%.)


21

4 of 19

Introduction

This paper presents a summary of the demand and outcomes in relation to the University’s commitment to inclusive admissions.

The University’s inclusive admissions policies and processes reflect a commitment to:∑ mitigate the impact of systemic disadvantage where it affects the accumulation and assessment of merit (for

example, as scored in an ATAR) and an applicant’s relative ranking in competitive selection∑ prioritise cohorts of students such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students for whom a capability-based

selection mode is applied∑ reflect requirements such as those contained within the Equal Opportunity Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and

the Disability Standards for Education to ensure consideration at access and avoid unlawful indirect or direct discrimination.

The categories of students that are eligible for consideration under the University’s inclusive admissions schemes include theCommonwealth prescribed equity groups, being students:

∑ of low socio-economic status∑ from a non-English-speaking background∑ with a disability or long-term medical condition∑ from rural and regional areas∑ who are mature age∑ with a gender that is under-represented in that program (previously women in engineering, architecture and IT).

RMIT applies additional consideration for applicants who apply for programs in vocational education and higher education:∑ VET – Certificate IV, Diploma, and Advanced Diploma∑ HE – Associate degree, Degree

RMIT operates the following inclusive admissions schemes, aligned with the program application processes:

∑ VTAC application - Special Entry Access Scheme (SEAS) application∑ RMIT Direct – Apply Direct application∑ RMIT’s SNAP program is applied for through the VTAC and SEAS process∑ VCAL Senior Access

Data and methodology

This report incorporates several different sets of information to achieve a more in-depth understanding of the outcomes of the equity admissions schemes. SEAS and SNAP figures on the number of applications, offers and enrolments are based on data provided by the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre (VTAC) and derived from SAMS after census date.

RMIT Access figures are extracted from the Apply Direct application system after the admissions closing date.

The figures presented in this report are based on the following data sets:

SEAS and SNAP- Preferences of SNAP applicants in the scored SEAS file _ 4 December 2015- 2015 Popularity report: RMIT University 23 December 2015- VTAC SEAS final as at 16 March 2016 (VTAC)- RMIT offer and enrolment as at 12 April 2016, data extracted from SAMS


22

5 of 19

RMIT Access

- RMIT application and offers as at 22 March 2016, extracted from Apply Direct

Changes to VTAC publication and selection data files

In the 2015/2016 admission year business changes were implemented to improve the experience for users of the VTAC systems and publications. The introduction continuous Change of Preference altered the way we are able to compare datafrom the same period.

Change of Preference period:

The introduction of a continuous change of preference period allows applicant to add, remove or re-order program preferences during the entire admissions period. The final SEAS scored file formerly available in December of each year, was only available at the conclusion on Round 5 in late February.

This year the 2016 application data represented in this report was from 4 December (pre-change of preference period). This allows for more accurate year on year comparisons.


23

6 of 19

Detailed findings and analysis

1. SNAP admission scheme participation and outcomesRMIT's Schools Network Access Program (SNAP) is one of the ways in which we ensure a diverse and inclusive student population. The Equity and Diversity Unit manages the SNAP partnership with over one hundred secondary schools with high concentrations of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and circumstances.

SNAP demonstrates RMIT's deep commitment to equity and access by considering students' ATAR achievements alongside a school-based assessment of a student’s potential for academic success. SNAP students with their school's endorsement receive priority access to RMIT's degree and diploma programs in the form of a significant re-rank on their ATAR (up to 20 ATAR points), and equivalent extra consideration for programs that select on a range of criteria.

In 2016, 165 secondary schools participated in SNAP, resulting in 6081 applicants1 being considered for places in RMIT programs. Over 2400 students were successful in being made offer and more than 1700 students enrolled at the conclusion of the admissions period.

Table 1: 2016 SNAP admissions scheme participation and outcomes

1 SEAS scored file – 4 December 2015 (Pre Change of Preference)


24

7 of 19

SNAP contribution to underrepresented groups – Low Socioeconomic status

SNAP is meeting our aims of increasing the access and participation of low SES students from schools with which we have a commitment and that represent the most disadvantaged schools and communities. SNAP students at RMIT represent a significant proportion of low SES backgrounds and other equity group students like Non-English Speaking Background and Indigenous students.

In 2016, the proportion of low SES HE VTAC enrolments is 15%, up 1 percentage point from 2015, with SNAP low SES HE enrolments representing nearly half (48%) of all HE enrolments (up 6 percentage points on previous year).

The proportion of low SES vocational education VTAC enrolments is 19%, down 3 percentage points from the previous year, with SNAP low SES representing more than half (53%) of all VE enrolments, up 11 percentage points on 2015.

Table 2: 2016 VTAC enrolments by SES

Applicants and Applications (SNAP demand)

Application data is used to establish demand for programs by SNAP students and thereby better understand the potential number of students in the ‘pool’ to select.

In 2015, an additional 58 secondary schools joined the SNAP partnership - bringing the total number of schools participating to 175 schools. This change resulted in an improvement to the number of applicants and applications received for the admissions year.

In 2016:

∑ The number of individuals applying for a RMIT courses through SNAP was 6,081 2an increase of 38% on previous year.∑ RMIT SNAP preferences increased by 34% from 13,276 in 2015 to 17,727 applications received∑ School participation was strong with 165 secondary schools endorsing students of the total 176 partner schools ∑ SNAP contributes strongly to RMIT 1st preferences. When compared to Current Victorian Year 12 applicant 1st

preference, SNAP 1st preferences increased noticeably with 29% change on previous, compared to 2% change for Current Year 12’s.

2 SEAS scored file – 4 December 2015 (Pre-Change of Preference)


25

8 of 19

Table 3: 2015-2016 CY12 and SNAP Preferences comparison

All SNAP All Current Year 122015 2016 % change 15-16 2015 2016 % change 15-16

1st Preference 1860 2404 29% 7466 7651 2%1-3 Preferences 4991 6684 34% 21418 22058 3%All Preferences 13276 17727 34% 60235 62939 4%

∑ At College level:∑ There was an equal share of HE 1st preferences of SNAP and Current Year 12 applicants in Business College∑ In SEH there were more (3%) HE 1st preferences from SNAP than Current Year 12 applicants∑ In DSC there were fewer (-3%) HE 1st preference SNAP applications when compared to all current year 12 preferences∑ Overall, for Vocation Education programs there was very little difference in SNAP and Current Year 12 1st preferences

Table 4: Comparison of SNAP 1st preferences to All Current Year 12 – Sector and College

Sector College SNAP % of all 1st Pref All Current Year 12 % of all 1st Pref Difference % of all 1st Pref SNAP

HE BUS 21% 21% 0%

DSC 43% 46% -3%

SEH 35% 33% 3%

HE Total 82% 79% 3%

VET BUS 18% 17% 1%

DSC 45% 46% -1%

SEH 38% 38% 0%

VET Total 18% 21% -3%

Comparison of SNAP demand to Current Year 12 – Field of Education

There was very little difference between the demand (1st preference) by broad field of education for SNAP and Current Year 12 applicants in 2016. The most popular broad field of education for both groups in 2016 was Management and Commerce(21% of applications for both cohorts).

In most other broad fields, the percentage of first preference was comparable, with the exception of Creative Arts where SNAP 1st preferences was 5% lower than CY12, and Society and Culture where SNAP 1st preferences were 3% above CY12 applicants.


26

9 of 19

Table 5: Field of Education SNAP and Current Year 12 applicants (HE and VE)

SNAP Current Year 12

Field of Education Broad1st

Pref% of all 1st Pref

SNAP % of CY12 1st Pref

1st Pref

% of all 1st Pref

Diff % of all 1st Pref SNAP

Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies 11 0.5% 28% 40 1% 0%Architecture and Building 232 9.7% 28% 832 11% -1%Creative Arts 386 16.1% 24% 1585 21% -5%Education 83 3.5% 41% 203 3% 1%Engineering and Related Technologies 350 14.6% 33% 1072 14% 1%Health 232 9.7% 35% 670 9% 1%Information Technology 142 5.9% 37% 382 5% 1%Management and Commerce 499 20.8% 31% 1610 21% 0%Mixed Field Programmes 3 0.1% 33% 9 0% 0%Natural and Physical Sciences 93 3.9% 32% 292 4% 0%Society and Culture 373 15.5% 39% 956 12% 3%Grand Total 2404 100.0% 31% 7651 100% 0%

SNAP Offer and Enrolments

∑ 2,408 offers made through SNAP in 2016, an increase of 38% compared with the same time in 2015∑ Offers were made in degree, associate degree, and diploma and certificate programs.∑ SNAP offers as a percentage of all VTAC offers increased by 4 percentage points from 15% to 19% in 2016∑ 1746 SNAP students enrolled degree and vocational education programs, an increase of 28% compared with the

same time in 2015

Share of applicants – Sector and College

SNAP offers represented 18% of all HE VTAC offers made, and 23% of VE programs. This is an improvement on previous year where SNAP HE offers represented 14% and VE 18%.

Table 6: SNAP offer and enrolments by Sector and College

Offers Enrolments Sector College SNAP offers All VTAC

offersSNAP as %

of allSNAP

Enrolments All VTAC

enrolmentsSNAP enrol %

of all VTAC

HE BUS 420 1894 22% 339 1333 25%

DSC 444 3555 12% 326 2338 14%

SEH 836 4067 21% 653 2561 25%

HE Total 1700 9516 18% 1318 6232 21%

VET BUS 153 648 24% 92 341 27%

DSC 280 1186 24% 177 686 26%

SEH 275 1183 23% 159 580 27%

VET Total 708 3017 23% 428 1607 27%

Grand Total 2408 12533 19% 1746 7839 22%


27

10 of 19

SNAP outcomes measured against 20% SNAP target

SNAP is a major contributor to achieving the University’s growth targets for the participation of students from low socio-economic status and non-English-speaking backgrounds.

To support growth, a SNAP target of 20% of all VTAC offers for each College was established in 2012. The target is measured against students offered and enrolled below the “clearly in”.

Offers and enrolment by selection mode

SNAP applicants endorsed for SNAP by their schools may receive a bonus on their ATAR of up to 20 ATAR points. Programs that select on a range of criteria (RC) provide an equivalent bonus consideration through the selection tasks.

To better understand the effect of the bonus and the proportion of SNAP applicants that are offered and enrolled below the clearly in, the SNAP outcomes are considered by selection mode.

ATAR

∑ Overall 62% of SNAP applications were below the clearly-in, this is a 10 percentage point decrease on previous year where 72% of applications were below the clearly-in. The decrease is attributed to the expansion of the SNAP partnership.

∑ The total number of SNAP offers increased by 98% from 1055 in 2015 to 2091 in 2016∑ Of the total number of SNAP offers, 38% were clearly in, 59% were below the clearly in and 3% selected based on other

program requirements.∑ Of the total number of HE VTAC enrolments (ATAR selection mode), 17% of HE enrolments were from SNAP applicants

below the clearly in. This improvement of 2 percentage points on the previous year∑ Of the total number of VE VTAC enrolment (ATAR selection mode), 7% of VE enrolment were from SNAP applicants below

the clearly in

Table 7: Below Clearly in (BCI) SNAP applications, offers, enrolments ATAR selection mode

Applications SNAP VTAC Offers Enrolments

Sector College BCI SNAP

Total SNAP

BCI % of

SNAP

BCI SNAP

Total SNAP

BCI % of

SNAP

All VTAC

BCI SNAP % of all VTAC

BCI SNAP

Total SNAP

BCI % of

SNAP

All VTAC

BCI SNAP % of all VTAC

HE BUS 2269 3275 69% 335 420 80% 1894 18% 269 339 79% 1333 20%

DSC 2743 3282 84% 252 309 82% 2196 11% 187 227 82% 1367 14%

SET 3627 5986 61% 519 800 65% 3781 14% 406 620 65% 2367 17%

HE Total 8639 12543 69% 1106 1529 72% 7871 14% 862 1186 73% 5067 17%

VET BUS 411 1209 34% 27 153 18% 648 4% 17 92 18% 341 5%

DSC 266 635 42% 52 134 39% 508 10% 30 83 36% 280 11%

SET 639 1674 38% 59 275 21% 1183 5% 32 159 20% 580 6%

VET Total 1316 3518 37% 138 562 25% 2339 6% 79 334 24% 1201 7%

Grand Total 9955 16061 62% 1244 2091 59% 10210 12% 941 1520 62% 6268 15%


28

11 of 19

Chart 1: SNAP offers clearly in and below clearly in by sector

By College

At College level the data shows a marked increase in total applications across the 3 Colleges when compared to the previous year.

In ATAR selection mode programs:

∑ Business College data revealed a 32% increase in applications on previous year of which 29% were below the clearly in.

∑ Design and Social Context College there was a 65% increase in applications on previous year, of which 64% applications below the clearly in.

∑ Science Engineering and Health had a 47% increase in applications, of which 31% represented below the clearly in.

The increase in applications across Colleges improved the applicant pool, and contributed to the improvement in offers and enrolments in Colleges. This is most evident when we compare enrolments below the clearly in to the previous admissions year (See Chart 2)

Overall, all Colleges increased the proportion of SNAP enrolments from the previous year with:

o The College of Business SNAP enrolments below the clearly in represented 17% of enrolments, and is near to meeting the target with a shortfall of 3%.

o DSC College SNAP enrolments below the clearly in represented 13% of enrolments, an improvement on previous year where 9% of enrolments were below the clearly in

o SEH College SNAP enrolments below the clearly in represented 15% of enrolments, a 5% shortfall.

28%

34% 33%

4%2%

66%

16%

7%

1% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Clearly In Band 0-9.99 Band 10-19.99 Band 20-24.99 Band 25 +

% o

ffer

s

ATAR Band

HE VE


29

12 of 19

Chart 2: 2015- 2016 SNAP enrolments % Below Clearly In by College (HE ATAR selection mode)

Chart 3: 2016 SNAP enrolments below the clearly in HE and VE ATAR selection mode

18

9

17

15

20

14

17 17

20 20 20 20

0

5

10

15

20

25

BUS DSC SEH All Colleges

% e

nrol

men

ts b

elow

the

clea

rly in

2015 Enrol 2016 Enrol Target

17

1315 15

20 20 20 20

0

5

10

15

20

25

BUS DSC SEH All Colleges

% e

nrol

men

ts b

elow

he

clea

rly in

2016 Enrol Target


30

13 of 19

Range of criteria (RC)

The RC indicator is used for programs that select using a range of criteria in addition to the ATAR.

∑ The total number of SNAP applications increased by 119% from 1135 in 2015 to 2486 in 2016∑ SNAP offers as a percentage of all VTAC offers increased by 6% from, 8% in 2015 to 14% in 2016∑ The SNAP offer rate (number of offers made by the number of applicants) was 13%, a 1% increase on previous

year.∑ Of the total number of VTAC enrolments, 14% were from SNAP applicants. This is an improvement on 4

percentage points on 2015.

Table 8: Range of criteria SNAP application, offer and enrolments 2016

Applications Offers Enrolments Sector College Total SNAP Total

SNAPAll VTAC SNAP %

of all VTAC

Total SNAP

All VTAC SNAP % of all VTAC

HE DSC1169 135 1359 10% 99 971 10%

SEH254 36 286 13% 33 194 17%

HE Total 1423 171 1645 10% 132 1165 11%VE DSC

1063 146 678 22% 94 406 23%

VE Total 1063 146 678 22% 94 406 23%

Grand Total 2486 317 2323 14% 226 1571 14%


31

14 of 19

2. VTAC SPECIAL ENTRY ACCESS SCHEME (SEAS) PARTICIPATION AND OUTCOMES

RMIT participates in the Special Entry Access Scheme (SEAS) for applicants who wish to seek consideration for adverse circumstances which affected their education. The scheme considers students affected by long-term disadvantage, such as mature age, non-English speaking background, recognition as an Indigenous Australia, disadvantage socio-economic background. Applicants can also be considered for short term circumstances which have affected their final years of schooling such as personal health or trauma, natural disaster or family crisis.

SEAS allows RMIT selection staff to recognise that an applicant’s results may have been affected by educational disadvantage,and take this into account by applying a bonus of up to 20 ATAR points.

This section will consider and quantify the effects of bonus on access and participation of students from equity groups.

Applicants seeking entry through SEAS

∑ For the 2015-2016 admissions year there were 32,685 applications of which 71% applicants (23,058) were assessed as eligible for equity consideration and received a bonus

∑ SEAS eligible applications represented a 3% decrease from 23,975 applications in 2015 to 23,058 applications in 2016

∑ SEAS applications represent 57% of program applications, this is a decrease on 2015 where SEAS applications represented 64%. The noticeable change in percentage share is likely caused by the expansion of the school partnership

∑ SEAS 1st Preferences represented 11% of total applications in 2016, 1 percentage point down on 2015

Table 9: 2016 Share of applications in SEAS and SNAP schemes2016 Applications

All SEAS SNAP

Total SEAS applications 50412 32685 17727

No. of SEAS applications received a bonus 40785 23058 17727

% applications eligible 81% 71% 100%

Source data: 2016 -3.2 Scored December

Table 10: SEAS preferences from SEAS applicants that receive a SEAS bonus (December 2016 Interim scored file)

Program preferences 2014 2015 2016 % change 2015-2016

1 2570 2834 2641 -7%

2 2653 2819 2630 -7%

3 2538 2706 2570 -5%

1-3 Pref All 7761 8359 7841 -6%

All Pref 22629 23860 23058 -3%


32

15 of 19

Offers and enrolments

To measure the contribution SEAS has to RMIT offers and enrolments we consider only those applications which received a bonus score.

Offers

∑ The total number of SEAS offers increased by 10% from 2,822 offers in 2015, to 3,108 in 2016∑ Total SEAS HE offers represented 28% of total HE VTAC offers, this is a 1.5 percentage point decrease from 2015∑ Of the total SEAS HE offers 54% were below the clearly in, a 3 percentage point increase on 2015∑ SEAS HE offers below the clearly in represented 13% of all VTAC offers for 2016, this is a 1 percentage point decrease on

previous year.∑ SEAS VE offers below the clearly in represented 7% of all VTAC offers for 2016.∑ Over 500 offers were made in Range of Criteria programs (HE and VE), which represented 26% of all VTAC offers, this a 6%

percentage point decrease on previous year.

Enrolments

∑ SEAS enrolments increased by 2% from 1857 in 2015 to 1888 in 2016∑ Of the total VTAC enrolments (ATAR selection mode), 15% of enrolments were from SEAS applicants below the clearly

in. This represents an improvement of 2 percentage points on the previous year∑ Of the total VTAC enrolments (Range of Criteria mode), 26% of enrolments were from SEAS applicants. This

represents a small decrease of 2 percentage points.

Table 11: All SEAS offers and enrolments (2015-2016)

2015 2016

Offers Enrolment Offers EnrolmentOffers %

change 15-16

Enrol % change 15-

16

HE 1992 1363 2210 1411 11% 4%

VE 830 494 898 477 8% -3%

Total 2822 1857 3108 1888 10% 2%

Table 12: Below Clearly In (BCI) SEAS Applications and Offers _ ATAR selection mode_2016


33

16 of 19

Table 13: 2015-2016 SEAS Applications and Offers _Range of Criteria (RC) selection mode

2015 2016Applications Offers Applications Offers

Sector

Total AppsTotal SEAS All VTAC

SEAS % of all VTAC Total Apps

Total SEAS All VTAC

SEAS % of all VTAC

HE Total 2567 331 1689 20% 2440 390 1645 24%

VE Total 1528 203 678 30%

Grand Total 2567 331 1689 20% 3968 593 2323 26%

Equity Groups- access and participation

Four key equity groups indicators are available in the SEAS data provided by VTAC, these include SES data, Indigeneity, Regional/Rural and Disability.

The analysis presented below provides a general summary on the access rate (percentage) of equity groups offered and enrolled in 2016. As one of the aims of the access schemes is to improve the number of students who gain access to an RMIT program, specifically applicants from equity group backgrounds who may otherwise not have received an offer. The measure of performance is considered against the number of offers below the clearly in (ATAR selection mode).

In 2016:

∑ SEAS low SES below the clearly in offers represent 24% of all VTAC offers, 1 percentage point down on previous year∑ Applicants who identified with a Disability represented 51% of all VTAC offers below the clearly in, equivalent to

previous year.∑ Applicants who identify as Indigenous represented 57% of all VTAC offers below the clearly in, 28 percentage points

down on the previous year∑ Applicants identified as living in rural/regional areas represented 82% of offers below the clearly in, 11 percentage

points down on 2015

Further analysis on the equity groups would be beneficial to better understand the variables for the sizable increase and decreases in offers represented in the data set.

Measured against the University scorecard

In 2016

∑ the overall proportion of low SES HE VTAC enrolment is 15%, slightly short of the target that 15.7 % of commencing domestic students will be from low SES backgrounds.

∑ the overall proportion of low SES VE VTAC enrolments marginally above the 2016 target.

SEAS access program contributed to overall HE VTAC enrolment percentage with:

SEAS low SES enrolments:

∑ SEAS low SES HE enrolments represented 21% of all low SES HE VTAC enrolments∑ SEAS low SES VE enrolment represented 20% of all low SES VE VTAC enrolments

SEAS Indigenous enrolments

∑ SEAS HE Indigenous enrolment represented more than half (79%) of all Indigenous HE VTAC enrolments.∑ SEAS VE Indigenous enrolments represent more than half (67%) of all Indigenous VE VTAC enrolments.


34

17 of 19

Table 14: Low SES and Indigenous enrolments as a % of all VTAC enrolments

Low SES IndigenousAll VTAC SEAS SNAP All VTAC SEAS SNAP All VTAC Enrol

HE 926 192 440 33 26 7 6232VE 308 63 162 15 10 5 1607

Total 1234 255 602 48 17 12 7839HE % all enrol 15% 3.08% 7.06% 0.53% 0.42% 0.11%VE % all enrol 19% 3.92% 10.08% 0.93% 0.62% 0.31%

Table 15: Low SES and Indigenous enrolments as a % of all VTAC

Low SES IndigenousAll VTAC SEAS SNAP All VTAC SEAS SNAP All VTAC Enrol

HE 926 192 440 33 26 7 6232VE 308 63 162 15 10 5 1607

Total 1234 255 602 48 17 12 7839HE % of all VTAC 21% 48% 79% 21%HE % of all VTAC 20% 53% 67% 33%


35

18 of 19

3. RMIT ACCESS (DIRECT APPLICATIONS)

The direct application equivalent to the Special Entry Access Scheme, the assessment of short and long term disadvantage categories is assessed and scored (maximum bonus of 5 points) by Admissions. Selection Officers take into account students disadvantage by applying the bonus.

Applications

∑ The total applications increased by 21% from 2,640 in 2015, to 3,185 in 2016∑ Of the total number of applications received, 82% of applications received a bonus

Offers

∑ The total number of offers made was 1,360 which represent a 28% increase from 2015∑ Of the total number of eligible applications, 52% received an offer compared to 50% in 2015∑ Of the total number of eligible applications, 12% received equity consideration which resulted in an offer.

Chart 4: Applications and Offers 2015-2016

In contrast to SEAS, currently there is limited demographic data available to evaluate the contribution the direct application scheme has to improving the access and participation of low SES, Indigenous and other equity groups.

We are hopeful that with the new Global Admissions system additional data can be extracted for future evaluation and reporting.

2147

2596

10631360

10% 12%0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2015 2016

Applications and Offers 2015-2016

Applications Offer Equity consideration resulted in an offer (%)


36

19 of 19

4. VCAL SENIOR ACCESS

In the 2012-2013 admission year RMIT introduced a selection process to enable successful senior VCAL applicants to be selected for VET programs. It was acknowledged at the time that VCAL students meet pre-requisite requirements for most VET diploma/advanced diploma programs, however the RMIT’s use of ATAR as the selection mode for current year 12 students is the barrier to inclusion in a selection pool, and ranked selection.

To enable senior VCAL applicants to be considered and included in selection pools a selection process was established and operationalized through the allocation of a notional ATAR of 40 for diploma and advanced diploma programs that select on ATAR/GPA, and confirms access for programs that select on ‘range of criteria’

In 2016,

∑ There were 587 applications identified3 with VCAL Senior indicator, of which 26% of applications were re-ranked∑ 57 applicants were offered, which represented a 21% increase on the previous year∑ 35 applicants enrolled, which represented a 133% increase on the previous year∑ 46% of offers were to applicants from a SNAP school

On further analysis of the data by college and programs we can see:

∑ College of Business re-ranked almost all applicants∑ SEH and DSC appear to have an uneven approach to selection of applicants, some further analysis would be valuable

Table 16 2015-2016 VCAL Access offer and enrolments by College

2015 2016 2015-2016

Sector College Offers Enrolments Offers Enrolments% change (offers)

VE BUS 27 11 46 31 70%

DSC 2 0 6 2 200%

SEH 18 4 5 2 -72%

Grand Total 47 15 57 35 21%

3 Senior VCAL applicants categorised as E16 or V16 , have an S in Ext std and rank of 1200


37

1

Vice-Chancellor’s Report to Academic Board

27th June 2016

1. Government/Policy updates

1.1 Options for Higher Education Reform

The Government chose to defer taking any policy decisions related to higher education to the election, instead opting to release a Higher Education Reform Discussion paper on the 3rd of May. The wide ranging paper outlines a spectrum of policy options seeking advice from universities and university stakeholders.

It appears clear, however, that a returned Coalition Government will seek significant savings in the portfolio while remaining at least philosophically committed to deregulating the sector.

The Labor Party has outlined in broad terms its alternative plan for higher education policy and regulation. An incoming Labor Government has committed to increasing the student subsidy rate, and improving the stability of funding and student fees - ruling out adopting fee deregulation.

The Party has also outlined a number of initiatives to improve both participation in and the quality of STEM education; as well as a plan to conduct a long term independent review of vocational education.

1.2 Admissions transparency

The Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) undertook consultations on increasing the transparency of higher education admissions processes (submissions were due on May 27th). The HESP plans on providing advice to the Minister by September.

In light of this consultation, RMIT has held a number of productive internal discussions regarding continuous improvement for our admissions processes.

1.3 Literacy and Numeracy Test

State and Territory education ministers formally resolved in September 2015 that from July 1st 2016 all students undertaking initial teacher education courses will be required to pass the Literacy and Numeracy Test (LANTITE), prior to graduation. The Test will be embedded as a Standard in the revised Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures. The School of Education is working to implement this requirement and other requirements to strengthen entry criteria for initial teacher education graduates.

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - VICE-CHANCELLOR & PRESIDENT

38

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/he_reform_paper_driving_innovation_fairness_and_excellence_3_may_2016.pdf

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/hesp_admissions_transparency_consultation_paper_april_2016.pdf

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/hesp_admissions_transparency_consultation_paper_april_2016.pdf

2

2. Learning, Teaching and Research

2.1 Student load

This report shows the target load and the percentage of target achieved by college, level and fund source. The enrolment status is at June 3rd 2016.

International Onshore∑ The Undergraduate cohort should be close to target.

AFP∑ The Postgraduate cohort will not meet the University target. ∑ VE Students cohort will fall well short of target due to conversion of students to P profile.

International Offshore∑ Remains a watching brief until Semester 2 enrolments occur, but is unlikely to achieve

target.

Vietnam

∑ Is looking positive against reduced Undergraduate targets. Post Graduate is well under target and is unlikely to meet target.

Singapore (SIM)∑ Whilst there is optimism of achieving targets, we

continue to monitor progress in student enrolment behaviour.

Under targetClose to targetOver target

Too early to callFund EFTSL FY %age EFTSL FY %age EFTSL FY %age EFTSL FY %age

ONSHORE Source Target of Target Target of Target Target of Target Target of Target

Research RTS 965 98% G 125 99% G 335 104% G 505 98% GINTON 572 102% G 113 116% G 99 86% R 360 101% G

Post Grad CGS 936 100% G 59 113% G 548 97% G 329 104% GAFP 1,952 92% A 534 92% G 998 93% R 420 89% R

INTON 3,215 82% G 1,186 77% R 900 90% A 1,103 80% AUndergrad CGS 19,910 98% G 3,778 98% G 7,654 97% R 8,478 99% G

AFP 19 135% G 11 60% A 6 190% G 2 343% GINTON 4,756 81% A 1,588 70% R 1,282 91% R 1,650 82% R

Sub-degrees CGS 2,149 99% G 383 100% G 907 101% G 859 98% GAFP 68 84% A 1 128% G 67 82% R

INTON 893 84% G 500 80% R 122 100% G 271 83% AVE Govt Funded 6,008 65% G 1,027 53% A 2,679 66% G 2,302 68% G

App / Trainees 439 66% G 14 49% G 425 67% GAFP Students 611 28% R 113 21% R 357 28% R 141 32% RAFP Industry 720 22% R 374 17% R 69 80% A 276 14% R

INTON 687 65% G 99 66% G 396 66% G 191 61% GOUA PG 280 58% A 274 58% G 5 88% A

UG 1,122 56% A 210 49% A 15 13% A 897 59% A

Foundation INTON 1,377 88% G 390 82% G 596 100% G 390 74% G

OFFSHORE Fund SourceResearch INTOFF 101 81% A 15 50% A 39 93% A 47 81% APost Grad INTOFF 10 113% G 10 113% G

Vietnam 251 68% R 222 70% R 7 60% R 22 0% R

Undergrad INTOFF 1,080 58% R 272 31% R 219 72% A 589 65% RSIM 5,031 55% A 4,638 53% A 363 83% G 30 119% G

Vietnam 3,126 112% G 2,230 112% G 748 105% G 147 90% ASub-degrees INTOFF 134 45% A 134 45% A

Vietnam 197 100% A 159 100% A 38 100% A

VE INTOFF 7 113% G 7 113% GFoundation INTOFF 32 16% R 32 16% R

BUS DSC SEH

AcronymsRTS Govt Research Training SchemeINTON International Onshore

CGS Govt Commonwealth Grant SchemeAFP Aust Fee PayingINTOFF International OffshoreINTOFF/SIM International Offshore inc Singapore Institute of Mgt


39

3

2.2 Changes to Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) announced

The Government has decided not to proceed with the establishment of a new learning and teaching institute and to cease the operations of the OLT. While new grants and fellowships will not be offered, those currently in progress will continue. Final projects are scheduled for completion in 2018.

The OLT program of awards and citations that provide national recognition of excellence and innovation in learning and teaching will continue under different administration within the Department of Education. This year's OLT citations and awards will continue as planned, with state-based citations ceremonies scheduled for September and October, and a national awards ceremony in December 2016. Further information is available from the OLT website.

3. Other University news

3.1 RMIT launches Reconciliation Action Plan

RMIT recently launched its Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) and opened a new Indigenous garden on the City campus. The University developed the RAP in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, with the aim of promoting and strengthening relationships and respect between Indigenous people and other Australians.

The plan has six key focus areas:

∑ Governance, management and leadership∑ Learning and teaching∑ Ethical Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research∑ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff participation and success∑ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student participation and success∑ Community engagement

Designed by award-winning Melbourne-based architecture and interior design firm Greenaway Architects, the Indigenous garden, Ngarara Place, draws on four key pillars – Connection to Country, Cultural Motifs, Contemporary Aboriginal Art, and Knowledge Exchange. The garden also features a striking, contemporary piece of artwork by Aboriginal digital artist Aroha Groves, which has been installed vertically on Building 15, adjacent to the garden.

3.2 Indigenous Business Creation Scholarship

RMIT is offering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entrepreneurs the chance to start their own business with a new scholarship. The Indigenous Business Creation Scholarships will provide students with free training in the nationally accredited Certificate IV in Small Business Management at RMIT.

While completing the six-month program, students will be encouraged to apply for seed funding from the University’s New Enterprise Investment Fund or other funding, to help them find the capital to start their business.

3.3 Launch of student housing at Bundoora

A new high-tech student accommodation facility on the Bundoora campus was officially opened last month by the Minister for Training and Skills and Minister for International Education, Steve Herbert. Walert House (Walert is borrowed from the Indigenous Wurundjeri language meaning possum) will provide 370 beds for students and researchers in a broad mix of accommodation unit types. The accommodation is built around a technology-rich central hub of common areas that offer dedicated and informal student study, research, living and leisure spaces. RMIT has appointed UniLodge to manage the facility.


40

http://www.olt.gov.au/

http://mams.rmit.edu.au/96k5jvjhplz4.pdf

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/scholarships/ibc

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/students/neif

4

4. Achievements

4.1 Australia Council award

Gunditjmara woman and PhD candidate in the School of Media and Communication, Vicki Couzens has been awarded an Australia Council fellowship of $40,000 at the recent National Indigenous Art Awards for her outstanding contribution to the arts.

Ms Couzens’ PhD incorporates this outstanding artwork and she plans to use the prize to fund a project which explores women’s business. This prestigious award adds to others acknowledging her great work: a Lowitja Institute scholarship and a Creative Victoria grant.

4.2 Monash Engineering Women's Leadership Award

School of Engineering PhD student, Ms Zhefei Zhao, has been awarded the Monash Engineering Women's Leadership Award at the Future Women Leaders Conference. It is an inaugural career development conference attended by women from across Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia. The award was open to all female post doctorate and early career researchers interested in pursuing an academic engineering career.

Ms Zhefei Zhao graduated with a Bachelor in Engineering (Civil & Infrastructure) and is currently a PhD student in Civil Engineering.

4.3 National Senior Teaching Fellowship Awarded to RMIT

Professor Iouri Belski from the School of Engineering has been awarded a National Senior Teaching Fellowship from the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). Winning the Fellowship is a rare honour; only two to four Senior Teaching Fellowships are given out each year.

The fellowship topic is “Educating the Edisons of the 21st Century: Embedding tools of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) into the engineering curriculum”. Students will be taught to develop advanced cognitive skills so that they graduate as creative engineers who will be capable of developing novel products and services in a fiercely competitive global market.

4.4 RMIT Vietnam students successful in Student Startups competition

A group of students from RMIT Vietnam was recently successful in the Student Startupscompetition held at the campus. The H2M team won the group category for developing “Scoop In”, a tourist website with destinations and tour details suggested by local English-speaking students.

The team consisted of four business students Mai Duc Hieu, Nguyen Vu Huong Mai, Chau Minh Hoang and Pham Bao Chau. Their prize includes flights and entry into the 2016 Echelon Conference in Singapore. The Echelon conference brings together major financial and government institutions, investors and experts in the fields of technology, design and business.

Martin Bean CBEVice-Chancellor and President


41

ACADEMIC BOARDReview of special consideration

Page 1 of 9


TITLE Special Consideration – Update to Academic Board

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Issues

The following is an update to the Board on progress with work on the revised Special Consideration provision in the assessment policy.

1) Draft Policy Provisions

The draft provisions on Special Consideration (Attachment 1) were released for comment on May 13, and feedback has now been received.

2) The aims of the new policy provisions

Two principles premise the new policy:

i. RMIT should demonstrate care for students experiencing extenuating circumstances who apply for special consideration;

ii. The policy and its application must be equitable for all students.

Important changes to the policy are:

New Provisions Current Applications are submitted up to 10 days after the due date for an assessment

2 days

Compassionate and compelling reasons are submitted for applications lodged after this time

Currently at the prerogative of the Academic Registrar

Clarification that applications received more than 30 days after the conclusion of the examination period for the relevant semester are not considered (provides extended deadlines for rare and quite exceptional circumstances)

Not provided for in current procedure

Students provide a doctors certificate where relevant Required under the current procedure. However, the dates for which special consideration is soughtwill need to be supported by the information on certificates.

The Impact Assessment Statement is no longer required

Required under the current procedure.

If a student has received a result for an assessment task for which special consideration and alternative assessment are approved, the higher result of the two assessments will stand

Not provided for in current procedure

3) Consultation Phase

Stakeholder feedback is summarised in the Further Information section.

The current draft policy provisions were developed in light of the Academic Board paper and discussion of March 7, and following an initial round of consultation with:

∑ RUSU∑ Academic Registrars Group∑ The Dean of Students

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - STRATEGY AND GOVERNANCE

42


Page 2 of 9

∑ The Chair of Academic Board

Wider feedback will be addressed in the next iteration of the policy.

Along with special consideration, there are four related areas under the current procedure:

∑ equitable assessment arrangements∑ extensions of time for submission of assessable work∑ future assessment adjustments∑ appeals against university decisions in relation to assessment adjustments

During consultation it was apparent that these areas equally require revision with a pastoral care focus. This work is best undertaken in conjunction with the work on special consideration to provide clarity of purpose for each area as part of the overall review the Assessment Policy.

In addition, the Assessment Policy has undergone review throughout 2015 and early 2016 (through the Office of the Dean Learning and Teaching and Colleges, and supported by the ARG and staff of the Strategic Policy Review Project).

The revision of the Assessment Policy will now encompass the above areas and special consideration. It is planned to bring a revised Assessment Policy to the October 2016 meeting of Academic Board. Next steps in the process:

Assessment Policy timelines and stepsJune 20 to July 20 Complete initial draft of the of the Assessment PolicyJuly 21 to 28 DVCE Review of existing draftAugust 1 to 18 Draft released to key stakeholdersAugust 23 Feedback reviewed with DVCEAugust 30 to September 13

Preparation of final submission to Academic Board

October Academic Board


That Academic Board note the update.


43


Page 3 of 9

Timing of Decisions

N/A

Further Information

Stakeholder feedback

1. Extended time frame for applications (see 4 of the attached policy):

The extended timeframes were strongly supported as a response to the pastoral care of students seeking special consideration. A number of concerns were raised, including some that could directly affect students:

∑ The extended timeframe would impose addition workload on academic staff and there are practical issues for scheduling deferred exams and assessment

∑ Such timeframes could be disadvantaging for graduating students who may miss the December graduation ceremony

∑ Involved particular issues for RMIT Online, with a one week break between semesters; and RMIT Vietnam that has three semesters

∑ 5 days is seen as more realistic by some and a reasonable compromise∑ Final cut-off of 30 days after the examination period appears too much time and why have a ten day cut-

off and a thirty day cut-off

2. Process and roles:∑ For consistency the contact point for students wishing to speak to someone should start with

RMITConnect, with a clear decision tree that refers them onto to school staff where required∑ If administrative staff in schools are to have a role then the responsibilities need to be clearly defined in

relation to RMITConnect and ARG, and supported by PD∑ Questions raised as to how the revised Special Consideration Policy is defined in relation to related

areas such as extensions, equitable assessment arrangements and future assessment adjustments that sit alongside special consideration

∑ Greater flexibility for decisions makers than strict criteria based decisions so as not to disadvantage particular student cohorts

∑ Urgent need for upgraded system functionality, utilising existing systems, to better support special consideration, extensions, equitable assessment arrangements and future assessment adjustments

3. Communication with students:∑ Where an application complete with all information is not approved, there be consultation with the

student before sending written advice∑ Written advice should include the reason an application is not approved

4. Language of the policy:∑ Some of the language still evidences a judgemental paradigm where students need to provide

appropriate evidence to “justify” their application

5. Criteria:∑ Should include what is reasonable and practical for the university to accommodate, rather than on the

basis of requiring students to prove severe circumstances to justify an 'academic advantage'

6. Appeals:

∑ Some confusion over where appeals sit in the process and the provisions that apply to special consideration

6. Stakeholder group:

Key Stakeholders:DVC(A) – Prof. Paul GoughDVCE – Prof. Belinda TynanRUSU President – Ariel ZoharDean Student – Prof. Owen HughesChair of Academic Board – Prof. David HaywardDPVC (L&T) SEH – Prof. Tom Steiner


44


Page 4 of 9

DPVC (L&T) DSC – Assoc. Prof. Andrea ChesterDPVC (L&T) BUS – Prof. Val ClulowDeputy Director, Academic Policy – Dr. Kai JensenAcademic Registrar – Dr. Maddy McMasterAssoc. Prof. Melih OzlenDr. Caroline Norma Dr. Alex Wa

Relevant links:

Assessment Policy

Special Consideration webpage

Assessment: Adjustments to Assessment Procedure


This paper is not confidential.

REMAINDER OF PAPER


Special Consideration was considered at the Academic Board of March 7, 2016. This update responds to the issues raised in the paper that went to the Board and the discussion.


Presenting the revised and more comprehensive approach to special consideration and related areas within the Assessment Policy will provide greater clarity and consistency.


INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

No additional risks in presenting a revised and consolidated policy

ATTACHMENTS

Revised draft special consideration provisions

Submitted by:Name: Dr Loren Miller

Title: Vice President Strategy and Governance

Date: June 20, 2016


45

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=qwxbqbg739rl1

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=7usdbki1fjf31

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/students/specialconsideration

http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=qwxbqbg739rl1


Page 5 of 9

ATTACHEMENT 1

Special Consideration – Draft Policy – June 2016

PurposeThe purpose of special consideration is to ensure students experiencing extenuating circumstances are appropriately supported and can seek adjustments to assessments that provide the best circumstances for ongoing success in their program.

Extension OptionsTable 1: Summary of extension and special consideration options

Type of request Timing Student circumstances

Approver

Extension less than 7 days Up to 1 working day before due date

Course Coordinator

Extension greater than 7 days

Up to 1 working day before due date

With EAA Course Coordinator

Special consideration Less than 1 working day before due date and up to 10 days after due date

To be revised consistent with the policy

Special consideration Less than 1 working day before due date and up to 10 days after due date

Multiple/repeat requests/with EAA

To be revised consistent with the policy

1. Students apply directly to the course coordinator for an extension of up to seven days to the due date for an assessment task.

2. Applications for an extension are lodged at least one working day before the deadline for submission, including for automatic extensions.

3. Where an extension longer than seven days is needed, or the student is unable to lodge an application for an extension prior to the due date, students apply for special consideration (see below) except where a student has an Equitable Assessment Arrangement (EAA). EAA provides for negotiation of submission dates with the relevant academic staff member.

Special Consideration4. An application for Special Consideration is made in advance of an assessment wherever possible, but not

later than 10 days after the assessment date. 5. Course Coordinators approve alternative assessment tasks and arrangements. 6. Student provide all relevant information with their application.7. Outcomes of applications for special consideration are:

7.1. an equivalent assessment;7.2. an extension of time;7.3. a deferred assessment;7.4. other arrangements deemed appropriate to the circumstances of the student and the course

concerned7.5. a late course withdrawal without academic penalty;7.6. special consideration not approved, communicated in writing; or7.7. cancellation of the application for lateness or incompleteness, communicated in writing.

8. Complete applications that include supporting documentation and evidence are considered and responded to within 10 working days.

9. If the application is not approved, the reasons for this will be provided. 10. The evidence supporting an application must apply to the dates for which special consideration is sought.11. Students are notified if their application is incomplete and will have 5 working days to submit missing

information or documentary evidence. 11.1 If the information is not provided and there has been no further communication from the student, the student is advised that their application is not approved due to incomplete information or documentation.


46


Page 6 of 9

12. Applications lodged more than 10 days after the due date are not considered unless the student can, with the application, give compelling reasons for submitting the application late.

13. Applications received more than 30 days after the conclusion of the examination period for the relevant semester will not be considered.

14. If a student has received a result for an assessment task for which special consideration and alternative assessment are approved, the higher result of the two assessments will stand.

15. Students meet all requirements and conditions detailed in writing for an approved application for special consideration.


47


Page 7 of 9

Schedule 1 – Extenuating Circumstances and appropriate evidenceNote: An application for Special Consideration is not limited to these circumstances

Example of a Circumstance Appropriate Evidence

(Note: Evidence provided must apply to the dates of assessments for which adjustments are sought.)

Serious personal accident or injury of self or closefamily member:

∑ car (or other transport) crash;∑ an acute episode within a longer term

medical condition.

Medical certification of serious accident(doctor’s note, hospital letters, hospitalappointments).Where relevant, a medical certificate should specify any extended period of absence required by the student for medical or health reasons.

Serious illness of self or close family member (includingmental health):

∑ an incapacitating illness or unexpecteddeterioration in an ongoing illness or medicalcondition;

∑ an assault where the student is the victim;∑ breaks and sprains of the normal writing hand /

arm.

Medical certification of serious illness(doctor’s note, hospital letters, hospitalappointments, copy of prescription ormedication, letter from a counsellor).

Doctors cannot backdate medical certificates so it is in the interests of students to seek a medical consultation without delay when experiencing a medical or health condition that may affect assessments.Where relevant, a medical certificate should specify any extended period of absence required by the student for medical or health reasons.

Death of close family member (e.g. partner, parent,primary carer, child):The definition of ‘close’ is not confined to partner, parentor child and might reasonably include significant others(e.g. primary carers, grandparents, or friends) where therelationship between the student and the deceased can beproven to be demonstrably close. Regardless of the typeof relationship it is the impact of the death on the studentthat needs to be clearly explained.

It is recognised that the anniversary of a death mighttrigger a claim for extenuating circumstances– again it is the impact on the student’s ability toundertake assessments that needs to be evidenced.

Death certificate, order of service,newspaper announcement orcorroboration from a member of thestudent’s family. Death certificate, order ofservice, newspaper announcement orcorroboration from a member of thestudent’s family (e.g. a supporting letter).

In cases of death relating to ‘significantothers’, the claim should normally beaccompanied by a brief explanation of thestudent’s relationship to the deceased.

In cases where the student’s family namedoes not correspond to that of thedeceased, a brief explanation of therelationship between the student and thedeceased should be provided.

Where appropriate, additional informationon the location of a funeral, and anyrequirements for religious observancemay be helpful.

Major household problem: fire, burglary, requirement to Independent (third party) evidence of


48


Page 8 of 9

appear in court. All must be relevant to the date of theassessment event or the period leading up to it.

serious personal disruption.

Significant verifiable transport delay preventing a student presenting for an assessment such as an examination.

Confirmation by transport authorities or police of a delay or cancellation to transport services or a major unavoidable traffic event

Impact of natural disaster: severe weather which preventsattendance or submission, civil disruption or other majorhazard (including major breakdown in transport system);

A letter from the police or other authoritydepending on the nature of the incidenceconfirming its nature and severity;evidence of flight cancellations, evidence oflocal conditions (e.g. travel web pages),evidence from local web pages of roadclosures.

Major, unplanned and verified changes in workcommitments.

Employer letter providing evidence ofsignificant change of employmentcircumstances (not valid for full timestudents).

Serious personal disruption: victim of a crime, courtattendance, relationship breakdown, unanticipated ornon-negotiable commitment to duties associated with anelected office, membership of a voluntary organisation orservice with army reserve forces.

Examples of relationships include husband / wife, civilpartner; long term relationship.

Independent (third party) evidence ofserious personal disruption e.g. letter ofcorroboration from the relevantorganisation, solicitor’s letter, letter fromcourts or member of the student’s family,written evidence from the police (includinga crime reference number) counsellor,social worker, victim support, etc.

Unplanned or unexpected circumstances duringpregnancy: in cases where a student becomes unwellduring pregnancy or something unplanned or unexpectedhappens.

Medical certification (doctor’s note,hospital letters, hospitalappointments).

Highly contagious illness: swine flu / norovirus wheremedical advice is to stay at home and not visit a doctor.

An application may be submitted withoutevidence if it is not possible to obtain any.However, if evidence is available to thestudent it should be submitted and coverthe period of absence from the University.

If evidence of a requirement for reasonable adjustmentsis provided too late to be taken into account in thedelivery or assessment of a module.

Corroboration from a Dyslexia Adviseror Disability Adviser.

Religious observance and scheduled examinations:where a student misses an examination due toparticipation in collective worship, abstinence or a ritual.Applications may not be made for any other form ofassessment

One or more of the following:a. a letter from a religious leader

(giving their title and role)explaining the nature of theobligation and how it impacts onthe student;

b. a personal statement by thestudent explaining the nature ofthe obligation and the way inwhich it impacts on theirexamination timetable supportedby independent evidence such as apublished timetable of festivals orevents showing the date, time andnature of the observance.

Verifiable University-wide, site-wide, nationally orinternationally-wide failures of equipment.

As appropriate to the situation.

Sporting commitment at a national / international level; Official correspondence from the


49


Page 9 of 9

the student is selected to compete at national orinternational level or attend a training camp whichrequires absence from the University on the date that theassessment was due to be submitted or the assessmentsat.

relevant sporting body confirming therequirement to be available onspecified dates.

Participation in activities at a national / internationallevel; may be interpreted as including, but not necessarilyconfined to, the fields of dance, art and design, drama,fashion, literature and writing, moving image and writing.Applies to required absence from the University on thedate that the assessment was due to be submitted or theassessment sat.

Official correspondence from the relevantorganisation confirming the requirement tobe available on specified dates.

Unique career enhancing opportunity: this should be linkedto practice based learning and / or contribute to regionaldevelopment and entrepreneurialism. It should be relevantto the program of study and supported by the programteam and apply to required absence from the University onthe date that the assessment was due to be submitted orthe assessment sat.

Official correspondence from therelevant employer / program teamconfirming the requirement to beavailable on specified dates.


50


TITLE An update of performance against the RMIT University Scorecard

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Issues

This paper provides an overview of progress against the University Scorecard where relevant data are available.

Recommendations

That Academic Board note the results.

Timing of Decisions

Not applicable.

Further Information

Not applicable.


Internal to RMIT.


There are 20 indicators in the RMIT University Scorecard. Just over half of them have updated dataas at June 2016. These are principally financial data, RMIT workforce, research and student data. Overall, RMIT is tracking reasonably well against these indicators. Preliminary indications suggest that it will meet or come close to meeting these targets by year’s end.

As of April, 32% of Group revenue (KPI 11) had been achieved and 43% of Group EBITDA (KPI 12). Outcomes of the April based forecast will provide a more accurate assessment of year-end financial position.

RMIT is on track to increasing the percentage of females in leadership positions (KPI 14), and reducing the lost-time injury frequency rate (KPI 15).

The University is tracking well against the range of research measures. Publication and citation rates and industry and other research income (KPI 17) are on track to meet or come close to meeting the full-year targets. Higher Degree by Research student enrolments (KPI 18) are on track to exceed the full-year target. Work is underway to establish a comprehensive data collection system to track PhD student publication rates (KPI 19), as the current dataset is incomplete. It is anticipated that a more accurate assessment of performance against this KPI will be available as the new system is rolled out. RMIT is on track to meet our student mobility target (KPI 20).

This updated Scorecard information is being considered by Council at its meeting on the 20th of June.


See above


51

DocRef: TRIM Page 2 of 2


N/A

INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

That RMIT’s performance could fall short of targets, thus requiring oversight on an ongoing basis.

ATTACHMENTS

Progress against University Scorecard (summary and details)

Submitted by:

Name: Dr Loren Miller

Title: Vice-President, Strategy and Governance

Date: June 20 2016


52

2016 University scorecard summary

2016 UniversityScorecard

Not yet available

36.0%

G 4.0%Not yet

available10.0%

A 10.0%

G 10.0%

A 9.4%

G 20.6%

Traffic light key:

Likely to meet or be over target by end or year

Likely to be close to target by end of year

Unlikely to meet target by end of yearG A R

Note on scorecard summary methodology: Nominations, Remuneration and People Committee agreed to a weighting for each of the University Scorecard Directions (Direction 1:40%, Direction 2:30%, and Direction 3:30%). These weightings have been applied when calculating the Scorecard Summary Circle above. The KPIs associated with each Direction have been given an equal weighting. For example, Direction 1 has 10 associated KPIs and therefore Direction 1’s weighting of 40% is divided by 10 to give each of the KPIs for this Direction a weighting of 4%. Some KPIs have more than one metric and so the individual KPI weighting may be further divided by the number of metrics that sit under the KPI.

Too early to report progress against just under half of the KPIs:– Student Experience KPIs: affected by 2015 transition from Australian

Graduate Survey to Graduate Outcomes Survey.– 2016 student progress and participation rates and June staff Pulse

survey results- update available in August.

KPIs at Amber:

– Female participation in identified leadership positions

– Lost time injury frequency rate.

– Non-Scopus ERA recognisable outputs and HDR outputs.

Progress on just over half on track to meet or come close to meeting full-year targets:– Strategy to create a step-change in student satisfaction across the top

200 programs progressing well.– Group revenue and EBITDA on track.– Good progress on range of research metrics.– Good progress against student mobility target.

1


53

} Progress updates available later in the year.

2


54

} Good progress on strategy to create a step-change in student satisfaction across the top 200 programs.

} Commencing participation rates of students from low SES, and students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds available in August.

3


55

4

KPIs at Amber} % average female participation in

identified leadership positions –should meet or come close to meeting target.

} Lost time injury frequency rate -should meet or come close to meeting target.

KPIs at Green} Group revenue and EBITDA on track

to meet full-year targets.} June Pulse survey results available in

August to give an indication of staff engagement.


56

5

3 KPIs at Amber} Non-Scopus publications ERA

recognisable outputs – verification activity occurring which may help to get us on track for Green.

} PhD publications and outputs-Work is underway to establish a data collection system to better capture PhD outputs.

5 KPIs at Green} Scopus publication rates on track

to meet full-year target.} Full-year citation target exceeded.} Industry and other research

income on track (at 65% of full-year target).

} HDR enrolments are likely to exceed target.

} Student mobility on track to meet full-year target.


57


TITLE Sub-Committee Minutes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Issues

Under the relevant terms of reference of Academic Board Standing Committees, they are required to report regularly to Academic Board. As such, the minutes of each Committee meeting are submitted to the next Academic Board meeting.

The minutes contain the formal record of the deliberations and decisions of the following Committees:

∑ Research Committee – minutes: 16 May 2016 (confirmed)

N.B. The June meeting of Education Committee was cancelled.


∑ That Academic Board note the minutes of the May meeting of Research Committee.

Timing of Decisions

N/A

Further Information

N/A


This paper is not confidential. The Chair and University Secretariat are responsible for communication relating to this item.

REMAINDER OF PAPER


N/A


See above


N/A

INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

N/A

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - ACADEMIC BOARD COMMITTEE MATTERS

58

ATTACHMENTS

∑ Research Committee – minutes: 16 May 2016 (confirmed)

Submitted by:

Name: Dr Jess Lee-Ack

Title: Secretary, Academic Board

Date: 21 June 2016


59

@BCL@4C0D6559Office of Research and Innovation Page 1 of 4 Save Date: 20/06/2016

MINUTESRMIT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

MEETING 04-16

CITY campus, Building 1, Level 1, Room 15 (Large Boardroom)and via videolink with RMIT University Vietnam

Monday 16 May 20163:00 pm - 5.00 pm

Attendance

Chair: Professor Calum Drummond

Present: Professor Andy BallAssociate Professor Suellen Murray (proxy for Professor Denise Cuthbert)Professor Paul Gorry (departed the meeting at 4:30pm)Professor Min GuProfessor Larissa HjorthProfessor Heather HorstAssociate Professor Jan Hayes (proxy for Professor Helen Lingard)Professor Peter McIntyreDr Caroline NormaDr Simon PeelMr Varun PrasathProfessor Pauline StantonProfessor Geoffrey StokesProfessor Xing Yu (Deputy Chair)Mr Samuel Zhang

Via Videolink: Associate Professor Nguyen Thanh Thuy (RMIT Vietnam)

Apologies: Dr Emma Barrow Professor Denise CuthbertProfessor Ralph Horne Professor Helen LingardProfessor Leslie YeoDr Annan Zhou

Guests: Dr Jasonne Grabher

Secretary: Ms Susan Fleming

*1. Membership – nil

*2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest – nil

*3. Order of Business3.1 Other business – 8.13.2 Starring of additional items – 7.3 (double starred); 9.7 (single starred)3.3 Unstarred items – adopted and approved without discussion

*4. Confirmation of RMITRC 03-16 Minutes – confirmed RMITRC 4.0 04-16

*5. Business Arising from Previous Minutes5.1 RMITRC Actions List – noted RMITRC 5.1 04-165.2 Business arising from the minutes not listed elsewhere

5.2.1 RMIT Research Committee Terms of Reference: approved by Academic Board – noted5.2.2 RMIT Research Committee Work Plan 2016: approved by Academic Board – noted

6. Standing Items*6.1 Chair’s Report

Professor Calum Drummond delivered a verbal report


60

@BCL@4C0D6559


6.1.1 The Chair indicated the Research Portfolio has been very busy, with two main foci being:i) standing up the Enabling Capability Platforms (ECPs) for which Professor Yu provided

an overview at last month’s meeting. The Chair has attended a number of the ECP workshops which all staff are encouraged to attend and which are proving to be an excellent forum to engage with the RMIT community about expectations in relation to ECPs. Advertisements for substantive Director positions for each of the ECPs will be published this week and members were invited to inform anyone they feel might be a suitable applicant.

ii) identifying and establishing industry engagement and business development activities, which are the subject of Professor Gu’s presentation under item 7.1, below.

6.1.2 The Chair tabled an overview (refer Appendix 1) of RMIT’s performance in the 2016 Linkage Projects and the 2016 ARC Industrial Transformation Training Centres funding round, the results of which were published recently. Eight successful linkage grants places RMITUniversity at number one in the Australian Technology Network (ATN), number three in Victoria, and number eight in Australia. With room for yet further improvement in the next round, Professor Min Gu has been placed in charge of developing a targeted strategy that will address three main areas where the University and Research Office need to support staff, these being:i) getting the right team in placeii) improving articulation of the Value Proposition/Path to Impact iii) providing advice on how to improve the co-investment.RMIT achieved a 100% success rate through a single proposal in the Industrial Transformation Training Centres (ITTC) section. It was also the first ITTC ever to be awarded to RMIT. The Chair closed his report by inviting members to direct any questions on the ARC results to the Research Office or Mr Simon Liddle’s team.

7. General Business*7.1 Guest Speaker Series: Research Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Professor Min Gu spoke to this itemProfessor Gu delivered a detailed presentation on Research Innovation and Entrepreneurship at RMIT (refer Appendix 2), which was followed by a question and answer session. The Chair encouraged members to provide any feedback or suggestions direct to Professor Gu, particularly on how to better support the research community, and indicated that the Committee will receive regular updates on developments within the RI&E unit.

*7.2 DR212 PhD (Built Environment): proposed property electives – endorsed RMITRC 7.2 04-16- Contemporary Property Decision Making- Property Modelling Conceptsfor forwarding to Academic Board for approval Associate Professor Suellen Murray spoke to this itemAssociate Professor Murray provided a brief overview, acknowledging that it is unusual to see courses at this Committee: however, with University policy currently silent on the treatment of HDR/PhD courses, it is considered good practice to place these PhD electives before the Committee for endorsement of the research content.

The Committee endorsed the two proposed property electives for the PhD program DR212 Built Environment, the electives being: Contemporary Property Decision Making and Property Modelling Concepts.

**7.3 Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) Review of Australia’s RMITRC 7.3 04-16Research Training System – discussed and notedAssociate Professor Suellen Murray spoke to this itemThe Chair provided a brief background on what gave rise to the report, elements of which tie into papers 7.4 and 7.5 below. Associate Professor Murray then advised that while Federal Government action on the report’s recommendations is ‘on hold’ due to the forthcoming election, this should be seen as an opportunity for RMIT to pro-actively engage with the findings of the report to ensure we remain competitive and retain and enhance our industry engaged distinctiveness. Members were encouraged to view the full report at: http://www.acola.org.au/index.php/projects/securing-australia-s-future/saf13-rts-review and to provide any feedback to the Research Office.

**7.4 ARC Consultation on Engagement and Impact Measures RMITRC 7.4 04-16– discussed with feedbackDr Jasonne Grabher spoke to this itemDr Grabher gave a brief overview of the consultation paper and invited members to provide written feedback to help inform RMIT’s response to the ARC within a tight timeframe. Open discussion on the paper highlighted a number of issues for consideration in framing a response, including balancing the needs of individual disciplines in measuring impact and engagement; whether track record and/or case


61

@BCL@4C0D6559


studies might be included as viable measurements; whether there might be a useful way of framing students as an audience; and whether publications and citations might also play a part in gauging impact. The Chair thanked Dr Grabher for her presentation, and encouraged members to contribute any further feedback to Dr Grabher at the earliest opportunity.

**7.5 Research Block Grant Consultation: “Sharper incentives for engagement: RMITRC 7.5 04-16New research block grant arrangements for universities” – discussedDr Jasonne Grabher spoke to this itemMembers were advised that with this paper being more technical than the ARC consultation paper (item 7.4 above) feedback is being sought from a smaller audience within the University. The School of Graduate Research (SGR) has already provided a draft response, and Committee members were encouraged to share the consultation paper with relevant stakeholders to seek and provide feedback at the earliest opportunity. The Chair thanked Dr Grabher for her presentation, and summarised the brief discussion by indicating that RMIT will want to progress the general principle of more flexibility in the scheme and allowing universities to make decisions on how to distribute allocated funds. Ms Grabher departed the meeting following discussion of all double-starred items.

*7.6 New Research Awards Guidelines and Policy – discussed and noted RMITRC 7.6 04-16Professor Xing Yu spoke to this itemFurther to the coversheet provided with the agenda, Professor Yu tabled a document (refer Appendix 3) detailing the Research Awards’ key principles, category definitions, and levels/names. In the discussion that followed, it was queried where a number of specific disciplines such as social science/social policy, for example, would fall within the proposed categories of Technology, Design, and Enterprise.

It was agreed Professor Yu would contact members following the meeting with an invitation to provide feedback and suggestions on the categories within seven days and prior to the Call for Nominations on 1 June. It was confirmed that the awards are open to RMIT Vietnam and RMIT Europe. The Chair concluded discussion with the indication that the Research Awards can be revised in subsequent years as and when appropriate.

ACTIONProfessor Xing Yu to invite members to provide feedback and suggestions relating to the categories; Technology; Design and Enterprise, within seven days.

8. Other Business8.1 Vietnam University Tiers

Professor Calum Drummond spoke to this itemMembers were advised that Vietnam is moving to a three tier system for its universities where in order to achieve Tier 1 status the university must be research intensive. The minimum criterion for Tier 1 is to deliver three PhD programs out of Vietnam. The School of Graduate Research has been working closely with RMIT Vietnam to stand up three formal HDR programs endorsed at the March Committeemeeting, and approved by Academic Board in April.

The Chair requested Dr Thuy to prepare a report for next month’s meeting on what’s happening in the Vietnamese system in terms of the changing classification of universities, its impact within the research context, and to lift members’ understanding of what can be done to assist.

ACTIONDr Thuy to submit a report to next month’s meeting on Vietnam’s university classification, its impact in a research context, and how members might assist.

9. Reports and Minutes – for information only9.1 eResearch Director’s report – nil9.2 HREC report – nil9.3 AEC report – 03-16 (Apr) RMITRC 9.3 04-169.4 RMIT Institutional Biosafety Committee minutes – nil9.5 SGR HDR report – (March) RMITRC 9.5 04-169.6 Graduate Research Committee minutes – 02-16 (Mar) RMITRC 9.6 04-16*9.7 RC minutes (College of BUS) – 01-16 (Feb) RMITRC 9.7 04-16

Dr Caroline Norma directed members’ attention to comments under Report of the DPVC (R&I), p.2 of 8,relating to the worth of conference papers, and suggested the University might consider developing an official position to alleviate the confusion currently felt by many staff members. The Chair acknowledged the ambiguity in this area, and requested Professor Xing Yu and the Deputy Pro Vice Chancellors (Research and Innovation) to liaise on how to provide guidelines around this issue and report back to the next meeting.


62

@BCL@4C0D6559


ACTIONProfessor Xing Yu and the Deputy Pro Vice Chancellors (Research and Innovation) to liaise on how to provide guidelines around conference papers, and report back to the next meeting

9.8 RC minutes (College of DSC) – nil 9.9 RC minutes (College of SEH) – nil9.10 HDRSC minutes (College of SEH) – 02-16 (Mar) RMITRC 9.10 04-169.11 RMIT Research Committee WorkPlan 2016: update – Feb-Apr RMITRC 9.11 04-169.12 RMIT Intellectual Property Committee – nil9.13 Academic Board minutes – 03-16 (Apr) RMITRC 9.13 04-16

*10. Next MeetingThe next meeting of the RMIT Research Committee is scheduled for Monday 20 June 2016 at 3:00 pm at CITY Campus, the Building 1, Level 2, Room 17 (Council Chamber). A videoconference will be conducted with RMIT Vietnam.

Closing date for papers is Monday 6 June 2016.


63


TITLEIndividual Evaluation Results – Update following meeting held on 6 June 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Issues

The Secretariat sought comments from an individual member after the 6 June 2016 meeting and selected a participant from membership category 2 (h) Two members elected by and from the professional staff, prior to the meeting to provide feedback and participate in a post meeting evaluation.

Feedback provided was as follows:

Michael Lavarch’s presentation regarding deregulation, markets and tertiary education was good background on what is happening in Vocational Education. The complications of the state and commonwealth governments were clearly articulated. Our place in Vocational Education and our strategy are respected by ASQA which is pleasing to hear. As an institution we work in a highly regulated environment which has its challenges.

Given our origins in providing practical and vocational education it’s good to know we still inhabit this space.

Response to feedback: Chair to continue to invite guest speakers to provide an external perspective on topics of interest to the Board.

At the 27 June meeting, feedback will be sought from category 2 (g) Two members elected by and from the students enrolled in VET or associate degree programs of the University. Results will be collated and presented back to the Board with the annual evaluation results at the December 2016 meeting.


That Academic Board note the feedback provided following the 6 June 2016 meeting.

Timing of Decisions

N/A

Further Information

N/A


This paper is not confidential. The Chair and University Secretariat are responsible for communication relating to this item.

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - ANY OTHER BUSINESS

64

REMAINDER OF PAPER


Evaluation allows review of performance in relation to core functions. It is considered best governance practice for a body to review its performance regularly and it assists in the assessment of whether or not objectives are being achieved efficiently and effectively.

At its meeting on 4 May 2015 members were asked to support the approach to continuous improvement through regular anonymous post meeting member evaluation. This is in addition to the annual formal evaluation of the Academic Board by all members.


See above


N/A

INSTITUTIONAL RISKS

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

N/A

Submitted by:

Name: Professor David Hayward

Title: Chair, Academic Board

Date: 13 June 2016

Academic Board Meeting 06/2016 - 27 June 2016 - ANY OTHER BUSINESS

65

academic board 06/2016 - rmit universitymams.rmit.edu.au/0fuv257h07yq1.pdfmyotherapy and remedial...

Documents