evaluation report august 2010 - university of tasmania · university college program . evaluation...

University College Program Evaluation Report August 2010

Associate Professor Anne Langworthy

Academic Director, UTAS College

Appendices

Contents

Appendix 1: Generic College MOU ................................................................................................. 2

Appendix 2: Desktop Scan University Credit dor Schools Students Programs, July 2010 .............. 1

Appendix 3: Online Survey Questions and Responses – College/School Staff ............................. 10

Appendix 4: Online Survey Questions and Responses – College/School Principals ..................... 43

Appendix 5: Online Survey Questions and Responses – UTAS Staff ............................................. 71

Appendix 6: Online Survey Questions and Responses – UTAS Heads of School .......................... 96

Appendix 7: Survey Summary Report Schools ............................................................................ 125

Appendix 8: Survey Summary Report UTAS ................................................................................ 131

Appendix 9: Survey Summary Report Combined ........................................................................ 138

Appendix 10: 2008 Annual Report ............................................................................................. 145

Appendix 11: Quality Assurance Plan ......................................................................................... 151

Appendix 12: University College Program Progress Report 2009............................................... 158

Appendix 13: College Language Program Survey ....................................................................... 168

Appendix 14: College Language Program Survey Analysis ......................................................... 175

Appendix 15: Report UTAS College Symposium (University Preparation and Pathways Symposium)................................................................................................................................. 185

Appendix 16: Student & Academic Administration Submission ................................................. 193

Appendix 17: Addition data UCP students – summary histories ................................................ 199

Appendix 18: Data for students doing approved UTAS units ..................................................... 203

Appendix 19: Using results in University units in the calculation of Australian Tertiary Admission Ranks (ATAR) ............................................................................................................................... 202

UTAS University College Program Evaluation Report Appendices– August 2010

1


2

Appendix 1: Generic College MOU

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA

AND

[INSERT [INSERT

COLLEGE NAME] COLLEGE LOGO]


3

This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is between the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and [INSERT COLLEGE NAME] (INSERT COLLEGE ABBREVIATION). It will assist in establishing a framework for ongoing cooperation and collaboration.

Purpose

UTAS and [COLLEGE] agree to work collaboratively and, where appropriate, share resources for the mutual benefit of both organisations and their students and staff. It is acknowledged that the two organisations share common interests in –

a) encouraging students to obtain qualification in senior secondary study and higher education, particularly in priority areas such as the core sciences, mathematics, visual and performing arts and languages;

b) developing and improving links/pathways to university study that recognise and respond to the individual capacity of students to undertake higher education;

c) supporting the professional development and recognition of high quality teachers; d) developing strong links between college teachers and UTAS academic staff.

Exchange of Information

UTAS and [COLLEGE] agree to exchange information about plans and proposed initiatives that specifically impact on the other partner.

Student Impact and Monitoring of Performance

The interests of the student are paramount in this relationship and it is critical that there is a regular monitoring of student performance in any UTAS-College initiatives, particularly having regard to any impact this may be having on normal study and college commitments.

Any students who participate in UTAS-College programs must, as part of the enrolment process, authorise appropriate [COLLEGE] and UTAS staff to discuss their progress regularly and to jointly address issues that arise.

UTAS will not enrol students under any of these initiatives without the express approval of the [COLLEGE] Principal and enrolments may be withdrawn if [COLLEGE] staff are not satisfied that students are meeting their normal study workload commitments or coping satisfactorily with the extra workload.


4

Collaborative Initiatives

Subject to agreement between UTAS and [COLLEGE], initiatives may include:

• Supporting high achieving students within the [COLLEGE] environment through accelerated degree programs which students might commence whilst at [COLLEGE];

• Developing enabling or preparatory programs to encourage more students to consider higher education as an option;

• Developing programs to support particular student cohorts into professional degree courses through a structured program of recommended 11/12 subjects and interaction with UTAS academic staff and familiarisation with UTAS facilities in that professional area;

• Offering discipline specific programs to allow students a greater challenge or to build on pre-tertiary subjects completed in year 11;

• Collaborating on specialist programs in visual and performing arts, media and communications, or other areas which [COLLEGE] regards as an area of excellence/distinctiveness/specialisation that would benefit from linking those strengths to similar capacities within UTAS;

• Working to achieve better alignment between the Year 11/12 curriculum and UTAS first year units to reduce existing overlap and to develop better recognition and progression arrangements for students;

• Supporting the professional development and accreditation of teaching staff to allow appropriately qualified staff to deliver university level units within the [COLLEGE] environment.

• UTAS provision of teaching staff development through formal award programs that develop and recognise discipline-based teaching skills.


5

Recognition of UTAS-College Partnership

By entering into this arrangement [COLLEGE] will be able, if they wish and subject to agreement between UTAS and [COLLEGE] on specific details, to:

• promote their institution as a being a partner of the UTAS-College initiative and, with consultation in relation to UTAS Visual Standards, use the UTAS public logo in their promotional material;

• promote their specialist area links with UTAS.

Similarly, by entering into this arrangement UTAS will:

• promote the relationship with [COLLEGE] under this agreement;

• promote specialist areas/programs with [COLLEGE] in its marketing material;

• offer low or no cost options for staff development through award course programs to [COLLEGE] teaching and administrative staff;

• support agreed initiatives through provision of attractive pricing of units to [COLLEGE] students. This may involve waiver or reduction of HECS liability, where deemed appropriate;

• promote the success of [COLLEGE] students in UTAS-College initiatives and develop prize and scholarship arrangements to support these programs;

• provide access to its Library, information technology services, sports facilities and other infrastructure to students who enrol in UTAS award units as part of this program.

Mechanism for Collaboration

UTAS and [COLLEGE] will each nominate a senior person to act as the contact/liaison person for the other party. In the first instance, these nominees will be the Executive Director, Planning and Development (UTAS) and the Principal (COLLEGE). Each contact person will endeavour to progress initiatives and overcome barriers to collaborative projects. Initiatives between UTAS and [COLLEGE] will be documented as Schedules to this MOU.

Review of MOU

A meeting will be held annually between the Chairman (COLLEGE Association) and Principal (COLLEGE) and the Vice-Chancellor or a member of the UTAS Senior Executive responsible for teaching and learning, and the Executive Director, Planning and Development (UTAS) to review progress with the MOU and consider priorities for collaboration for the following year. The review will include an analysis of the programs offered through the partnership, enrolments in those programs, and any other nominated performance indicators.


6

Duration of MOU

This MOU is valid from the date of signing for a period of two years, after which time both parties may agree to renew the MOU, subject to the outcomes from the annual review.

Legal Standing of Agreement

The parties do not wish to be legally bound by the terms of this MOU.

Dated this ……………….……… day of ……..………..….…………. 2008

………………………………… ………………………………..

[INSERT NAME] Professor Daryl Le Grew

Chairman Vice-Chancellor & President

[COLLEGE] Association University of Tasmania

Witnessed:

………………………………… ………………………………….


7


1

Appendix 2: Desktop Scan University Credit dor Schools Students Programs, July 2010 UNIVERSITY PROGRAM Type URL

University of Southern Queensland

Head Start

Head Start is offered to high achieving year 11 and 12 students who have achieved B average or higher on their latest report card. Students can enrol in one course per semester and will study alongside current USQ students. Head Start is also offered via a Summer program and distance education. No tuition fees are charged for the first course but subsequent courses incur a charge of $395. Faculties offering courses include Arts, Applied Media, Business, Law, Biological and Physical Sciences, Education, Engineering, Nursing, Psychology, Computing and Science. Students who successfully pass a Head Start course will receive 2 points to put towards their Queensland Certificate in Education (QCE) and are guaranteed entry into related University program. Student can withdraw without academic penalty before census date.

http://www.usq.edu.au/futurestudents/headstart

Curtin University

Curtin Business School Excelerate Program

Students complete a customised, industry-based unit in an accounting, economics or information systems unit at Curtin University in conjunction with PricewaterhouseCoopers. Students learn fundamental managerial skills related to industry and small business including management of personal finances and project management. Program is offered as a weekly three hour evening seminar. High achieving students may be offered traineeships or paid internship. Program offered to Year 12 students with B or above in year 11 Accounting, Information Technology, Computer Science or Economic (depending on the program applied for). Credit for one unit if successful. No guaranteed University entry.

http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/business/future-students/year-12-excelerate

http://www.usq.edu.au/futurestudents/headstart�

http://www.usq.edu.au/futurestudents/headstart�

http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/business/future-students/year-12-excelerate�

http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/business/future-students/year-12-excelerate�


2

Queensland University of Technology

Start QUT

START QUT is an opportunity for high-achieving students to experience university and extend their studies in year 12. Students must have grades of a B average or above with a minimum of a B minus in English. Students study one or two university subjects (one unit per semester) and are awarded a scholarship to cover the cost of their tuition fees.

Year 12 students study university units in the same classes as current QUT students, and at the same time improve their preparation for university.

Allows students who pass two units (grade of 4 or above, 7 being the highest) to gain admission to selected QUT courses and start studies in Semester 1, following completion of Year 12.

Successful START QUT students may receive academic credit for up to two units (24 credit points) towards an entry course for related units which has the potential to reduce future debt.

Successful START QUT students may also be eligible for up to 4 credit points towards their Queensland Certificate of Education (QCE).

No withdrawal without academic penalty.

http://www.scholarships.qut.edu.au/commencing/start/

Griffith University

The Griffith University Early Start to Tertiary Study (GUESTS)

Year 12 students enrol as a non-award Griffith University student.

Successful completion of the GUESTS program qualifies students for a 'Guaranteed Offer of Entry' application into an associated undergraduate Griffith degree program (some restrictions apply). Upon the commencement of the degree in the following year

http://www.griffith.edu.au/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/other-pathways-to-griffith/guests-program

http://www.scholarships.qut.edu.au/commencing/start/�

http://www.scholarships.qut.edu.au/commencing/start/�

http://www.griffith.edu.au/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/other-pathways-to-griffith/guests-program�




3

program students will receive full credit for the course and it will then count towards the requirements of your degree. No HECS fees. Eligibility:

about to enter Year 12 (for Semester 1 intake) or are currently in Year 12 (for Semester 2 intake)

high achieving student (achieving at A/B or VHA/HA level) and are currently studying the prerequisite subjects for the degree program

have the support of your School, Teachers, Parents and/or Carers.

Can choose from most 1st year undergraduate units.

Monash University

Enhanced Studies Program

For high achieving Year 12 students to study a pair of first-year university level subjects while completing Year 12.

There are 14 subjects offered. These are available in a range of methods from on campus at the University, off-campus at school centres or by distance education.

All Enhancement Studies students will be commended for their work at a ceremony at the end of the academic year. In addition, the highest achieving students from each subject area will receive a certificate and cheque for their outstanding achievement.

The university study is included in the calculation of Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank (ENTER). Students are eligible to receive credit for future university studies. There is no penalty for

http://www.monash.edu.au/study/enhancement/

http://www.monash.edu.au/study/enhancement/subjects.html�

http://www.monash.edu.au/study/enhancement/�

http://www.monash.edu.au/study/enhancement/�


4

failure or withdrawal, no record of status, and therefore no disadvantage in applying to Monash or any other university.

University of Melbourne

Extension Program

The University of Melbourne Extension Program provides an exciting opportunity for high-achieving students to undertake first-year university study while still in Year 12.

For 17 years, the Extension Program has provided an additional challenge for high-achieving Year 12 Australian and international students,.

The subjects offered through the Extension Program build on VCE studies and extend the study to a first-year university level, providing an excellent way to broaden knowledge and interest.

The University of Melbourne Extension Program enriches students' educational opportunities through enrolment in University of Melbourne subjects, and enhances links between the University, students and schools.

Extension studies offered by the University of Melbourne are endorsed by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). Successful completion of a full year of the University of Melbourne Extension Program can earn an increment of 4.0, 5.0 or 5.5 points, depending on the level of results achieved. This increment can be used as a sixth study in the calculation of the Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank (ENTER). Upon successful completion student s can apply for credit or subject

http://www.futurestudents.unimelb.edu.au/school/aust/umep/overview

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/studiesextension.html�

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/studiesextension.html�

http://www.futurestudents.unimelb.edu.au/school/aust/umep/overview�

http://www.futurestudents.unimelb.edu.au/school/aust/umep/overview�


5

exemption.

University of Canberra

UC Accelerate

HECS-free head start at the University of Canberra for students in Years 11 and 12.

It offers up to two university units to Year 11 and 12 students. UC Accelerate is available to students nominated by their school or college Principal as having the potential and motivation to undertake university study.

Successful students can use their UC Accelerate results as a basis for admission to a University of Canberra degree. Successful students may also receive academic credit for up to two units (6 credit points) towards a related degree.

HECS free.

Principals at every college in the ACT and Queanbeyan can nominate students for the program.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/accelerate

UNSW

University Developed Board Endorsed Courses in the HSC

Board Endorsed Courses (BECs) provide the opportunity to extend the Higher School Certificate curriculum in areas not covered by Board Developed Courses. For example, they may be designed to meet local needs of students or to provide enrichment of a subject area.

Board Endorsed Courses may be included in a student’s program of study for the Higher School Certificate but the results in these

www.secretariat.unsw.edu.au/acboard/committee_chairs/udbecguidelinesjan2002.pdf

http://www.canberra.edu.au/accelerate�

http://www.secretariat.unsw.edu.au/acboard/committee_chairs/udbecguidelinesjan2002.pdf�




6

courses are not eligible for inclusion in the calculation of the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR).

University Developed Board Endorsed Courses are designed for high-achieving students for study in Stage 6. These courses supplement and extend the HSC curriculum. They must not duplicate or significantly overlap existing Board Developed or Board Endorsed Courses.

Flinders University

Enrichment Program

This program has been developed by staff at Flinders University to provide experiences which will enhance learning in both Year 11 and Year 12 subjects.

Courses have been designed so that the senior students will have an opportunity to come to the campus and experience a small part of academic life in classrooms, laboratories and the library.

Goals of the Program:

To provide an enrichment program in specific areas of study for senior students who intend to pursue that study at university level

To strengthen the points of connection and continuity between secondary and university areas of learning for students

To increase the understanding of staff in both the secondary and university sectors of the curriculum content and teaching methodologies in each other's area.

http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehlt/enrichment/

http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehlt/enrichment/�

http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehlt/enrichment/�


7

To provide a basis for extending the shared understanding of both secondary and university staff about how best to match the students' knowledge and skills with possible university study pathways.

The program is intended to enrich students' knowledge and skills in the respective areas and is not directed specifically towards increasing their level of achievement in their Year 12 studies.

Issues related to equity of access for students will be addressed in the organisation and delivery of the program.

The content and teaching methodology of the enrichment program in each of the respective subjects or disciplines will be developed co-operatively by secondary teachers and university lecturers.

University of Newcastle

Gifted and Talented Program

The Gifted and Talented Program gives exceptional high school students the opportunity to get a head start on their university study.

The University of Newcastle program provides a pathway for exceptional students from all high schools to undertake first year university courses while attending school.

The program provides students with opportunities to fulfil their academic potential, help with career decisions, and can lead to credit for university studies. Now in its fifth year, the program is delivered at Merewether High School and Gosford High School but is open to students from all schools.

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/giftedandtalented/

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/giftedandtalented/�

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/giftedandtalented/�


8

Students enrol in University of Newcastle courses and become university students. They have access to all University facilities, including the libraries (excluding restricted areas). Educational technologies, such as Blackboard, are a feature of all courses; approaches to teaching and learning are innovative and sensitive to diverse student needs.

Students have a mentor at each school to support their learning and, if necessary, to guide students in their interaction with the University.

Courses are typically 15 weeks long. In the case of science courses, students complete "wet labs" at the University of Newcastle during the school holiday period.

When a course is completed, students are eligible for a credit transfer in a relevant university degree program

University of Adelaide

Headstart Scholarship

Program

Launched in 2001, the Headstart Scholarship Program has been developed in consultation with schools to meet the needs of gifted and exceptionally motivated secondary school students who require a challenge beyond the Year 12 curriculum.

Successful Headstart applicants will be awarded a Scholarship, exempting them from tuition fees for up to 12 units (i.e. a half-year's workload) of first year university study.

For the purpose of their enrolment they will be recorded as non-award.

Headstart students will attend classes and sit examinations on

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/headstart/

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/headstart/�


9

the same basis as other students. Grades will be recorded and may be used for status if the student is later admitted to an academic program. This will enable students to fast-track their academic program or take a wider range of courses than usual.

Each Headstart student will have as a mentor a staff member from his/her home school nominated by the Principal. The mentor's role will be to monitor student progress and act as a contact person linking the University to the student within the school. They will not be required to provide academic support.

Any student who passes a Headstart course, and subsequently enrols in a University of Adelaide academic program for which the course may be presented, will be granted credit for that study. If a student withdraws from a course at any stage of the year or fails that course, this will not affect their chances of university selection. No record of failure or withdrawal will be registered on the University's database.


10

Appendix 3: Online Survey Questions and Responses – College/School Staff

Initial Report College/School Staff

Last Modified: 05/24/2010

1. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

# Question Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Responses Mean

1 The University College Program is valued by our school/college. 18 10 1 0 0 29 1.41

2 The University College Program is valued by our students. 14 11 3 1 0 29 1.69

3 The University College Program is valued by our parents. 8 13 7 1 0 29 2.03

4 The University College Program is valued by UTAS. 7 13 9 0 0 29 2.07

5 The University College Program is widely known and understood by staff at our school/college.

0 8 8 11 2 29 3.24

6 The University College Program is widely known and understood by students at our school/college.

0 7 9 11 2 29 3.28

7 The University College Program is widely known and understood by parents at our school/college.

0 2 14 9 4 29 3.52


11

Statistic The University College Program is valued by our school/college.

The University College Program is valued by our students.

The University College Program is valued by our parents.

The University College Program is valued by UTAS.

The University College Program is widely known and understood by staff at our school/college.

The University College Program is widely known and understood by students at our school/college.

The University College Program is widely known and understood by parents at our school/college.

Mean 1.41 1.69 2.03 2.07 3.24 3.28 3.52

Variance 0.32 0.65 0.68 0.57 0.90 0.85 0.69

Standard Deviation

0.57 0.81 0.82 0.75 0.95 0.92 0.83

Total Responses

29 29 29 29 29 29 29

2. Comments:

Text Response It only applies to a handful of students so far and is not widely understood by students but we are working on it. Quite difficult for them to integrate into studies though.

Not really sure of the depth of understanding by parents or other teachers....usually too busy!

Those who are involved VALUE IT HIGHLY.

A lot of work to do to make this excellent concept really work well.

Statistic Value Total Responses 4


12

3. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following elements of the program:

# Question Very Satisfied

Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Responses Mean

1 Enrolment and administration 6 14 2 5 1 28 2.32

2 General information and communication about the program 8 13 4 3 0 28 2.07

3 Specific information and communication about individual units of study 6 10 9 3 0 28 2.32

4 Information and communication about student outcomes 2 13 5 6 1 27 2.67

5 Time students are required to devote to UTAS studies 9 15 3 1 0 28 1.86

6 Level of support offered to participating students via UTAS services (library, MyLO)

6 10 8 3 1 28 2.39

7 Assessment methodologies and processes 4 9 9 5 1 28 2.64

8 Unit evaluation processes 4 7 12 5 0 28 2.64

9 Relationship to TCE 7 10 6 4 1 28 2.36

10 Opportunities for you to be involved in the program and decision making 8 8 8 4 0 28 2.29

11 Opportunities for you to collaborate with UTAS colleagues in your discipline

5 8 9 6 0 28 2.57


13

Statistic Enrolment and administration

General information and communication about the program

Specific information and communication about individual units of study

Information and communication about student outcomes

Time students are required to devote to UTAS studies

Level of support offered to participating students via UTAS services (library, MyLO)

Assessment methodologies and processes

Unit evaluation processes

Relationship to TCE

Opportunities for you to be involved in the program and decision making

Opportunities for you to collaborate with UTAS colleagues in your discipline

Mean 2.32 2.07 2.32 2.67 1.86 2.39 2.64 2.64 2.36 2.29 2.57

Variance 1.26 0.88 0.89 1.08 0.57 1.14 1.13 0.90 1.28 1.10 1.07

Standard Deviation

1.12 0.94 0.94 1.04 0.76 1.07 1.06 0.95 1.13 1.05 1.03

Total Responses

28 28 28 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

4. Comments:

Text Response Some administrative problems still to sort out in AAP

As a college teacher I would have appreciated being sent the students' results at the end of the course.

This is really my first year being involved although I had students from my class involved last year. Some of the work in the art area could be more challenging and resultantly more enriching for TCE studies. The relationship between Drama and Visual Art often confuses students....

Disappointed that the philosophy group programme did not run this year. Some areas better than others at communicating with the school.


14

Students have found Mylo difficult to use

In its infancy. I strongly support the programme but see heaps of room for improvement in delivery.

i do the enrolment procedure myself, and most of the assessment. We assess using our own criteria as I am not really sure what the UTAS requirements are.

Program 'evolving' - college teachers do have input. assessments yet to take place (formally' - standards and assessment proformas being sorted out currently.

I believe UTAS should be able to communicate results to students and other institutions at the same time as TCE results are released in December. It was not until March, and only after I requested information, that I received our TCE students' results. This is a real weakness with the current system.

I would like to see a contingent speak to the learning area staff involved at the beginning of each year as we have fluidity in staff from year to year and obviously different people involved in different aspects of the program. As the leader of one of the learning areas involved I have absolutely no idea about many aspects of the program which is dissapointing. I don't think the university staff are aware of staffing structures in the colleges which are relevant to overseeing and promoting the program.


5. How many one-semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary student should be able to undertake per year in this program?

# Answer

Response % 1 1

6 22%

2 2

18 67%

3 3

1 4%

4 4

2 7%

5 More than 4 (please clarify below)

0 0%


15

Total 27 100%

Statistic Value Mean 1.96

Variance 0.58

Standard Deviation 0.76

Total Responses 27

6. Comments:

Text Response They are uder enormous pressure most of them anyhow...TCE, work, social, sport.

Depend on the level and number of TCE subjects the student is undertaking so it could be up to 4. Average of 2.

The number of units would vary from student to student. It would be determined by their ability, time available (some students have to maintain a part-time job to suppport themselves while others, because of their subject choices have a heavier workload than others)relevance of subjects available to their chosen pathway.

We are running a 1 semester unit over course of entire year - students need 'guided' practice time and time to build up a written portfolio as required.

More than 2 would seriously impact on the TCE results


7. How many one-semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary student should be able to count towards their TCE results in this program?


16

# Answer

Response % 1 1

5 23%

2 2

13 59%

3 3

1 5%

4 4

3 14%


0 0%

Total 22 100%


Variance 0.85


Total Responses 22

8. Comments:

Text Response Not sure any coul be counted

Requires some discussion as would not wish to see it disadvantage students who do not complete units and wish to put all their time into TCE subjects or into some other personal pursuit (eg sport). Maybe it should take the place of TCE subjects in some cases.

I think they should be able to count any that they complete. If they do the work and succeed, they should receive accrediation for their efforts.


17

I said two coz some of my students are doing so.

Two per year


9. Rank the following criteria for student selection for the UCP (drag and drop choices into position 1 - 5).

# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 Responses 1 Teacher recommendation 8 10 7 2 0 27

2 Student/parent request 1 3 2 21 0 27

3 Previous academic performance 11 5 7 4 0 27

4 Student commitment/drive 7 9 11 0 0 27

5 Other (please specify below) 0 0 0 0 27 27

Total 27 27 27 27 27

Statistic Teacher recommendation Student/parent request Previous academic performance Student commitment/drive Other (please specify below) Mean 2.11 3.59 2.15 2.15 5.00

Variance 0.87 0.71 1.28 0.67 0.00

Standard Deviation 0.93 0.84 1.13 0.82 0.00

Total Responses 27 27 27 27 27


18

10. Others options or comments:

Text Response Difficult in public post secondary situation as we sometime have only known the students for a couple of weeks before we have to make a recomendation. Could be good to have the escape clause....after some 'testing' to find committment/skill

Some students with a mediocre academic record shine when inspired by a program such as this. Motivation is a key indicator.


11. Who do you think should be responsible for the following tasks:

# Question School/College UTAS Joint UTAS - School/College Responses Mean 1 Deciding which students are eligible to participate in the program. 12 0 15 27 2.11

2 Deciding which and how many units students would do. 7 5 15 27 2.30

3 Providing pastoral care to students in the program. 9 4 14 27 2.19

4 Determining which units should be offered as part of the program. 2 12 13 27 2.41

5 Curriculum content of units offered. 0 9 18 27 2.67

6 Facilitating communication with students about the program. 0 7 20 27 2.74

7 Facilitating communication with parents about the program. 5 7 15 27 2.37


19

8 Scheduling and running information sessions about the program. 2 9 16 27 2.52

9 Unit evaluation. 1 11 15 27 2.52

10 Program evaluation. 0 6 21 27 2.78

Statistic Deciding which students are eligible to participate in the program.

Deciding which and how many units students would do.

Providing pastoral care to students in the program.

Determining which units should be offered as part of the program.

Curriculum content of units offered.

Facilitating communication with students about the program.

Facilitating communication with parents about the program.

Scheduling and running information sessions about the program.

Unit evaluation.

Program evaluation.

Mean 2.11 2.30 2.19 2.41 2.67 2.74 2.37 2.52 2.52 2.78

Variance 1.03 0.75 0.85 0.40 0.23 0.20 0.63 0.41 0.34 0.18

Standard Deviation

1.01 0.87 0.92 0.64 0.48 0.45 0.79 0.64 0.58 0.42

Total Responses

27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

12. Comments:

Text Response See it as a partnership...

UTAS cannot run this program alone. By its very nature it needs strong input from Schools and Colleges. However, it is a UTAS program and UTAS should decide which courses are viable.


20


13. Please comment on which aspects of the program you believe are most important:

# Question Very Important

Important Neither Important nor Unimportant

Unimportant Very Unimportant

Responses Mean

1 Providing HECS scholarships. 14 10 1 0 0 25 1.48

2 Introducing students to university level study and life.

15 7 3 0 0 25 1.52

3 Providing students with credit towards a university award program.

18 7 1 0 0 26 1.35

4 Expanding students' knowledge and skills in a particular area of study.

17 8 0 0 0 25 1.32

5 Challenging and extending high achieving students.

20 5 0 0 0 25 1.20

6 Boosting their confidence in undertaking university level study.

18 7 0 0 0 25 1.28

7 Encouraging students to go on to university. 17 6 2 0 0 25 1.40

8 Encouraging students to go to UTAS (as opposed to other institutions).

10 6 7 2 0 25 2.04

9 Encouraging students to pursue a particular area of study at university.

11 8 3 2 1 25 1.96

10 Opportunity to improve students' TCE 11 12 2 0 0 25 1.64


21

performance.

11 Providing UTAS-School/college liaison opportunity. 14 11 0 0 0 25 1.44

Statistic Providing HECS scholarships.

Introducing students to university level study and life.

Providing students with credit towards a university award program.

Expanding students' knowledge and skills in a particular area of study.

Challenging and extending high achieving students.

Boosting their confidence in undertaking university level study.

Encouraging students to go on to university.

Encouraging students to go to UTAS (as opposed to other institutions).

Encouraging students to pursue a particular area of study at university.

Opportunity to improve students' TCE performance.

Providing UTAS-School/college liaison opportunity.

Mean 1.48 1.52 1.35 1.32 1.20 1.28 1.40 2.04 1.96 1.64 1.44

Variance 0.34 0.51 0.32 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.42 1.04 1.29 0.41 0.26

Standard Deviation

0.59 0.71 0.56 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.65 1.02 1.14 0.64 0.51

Total Responses

25 25 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

14. Comments:

Text Response I see this as an opportunity to experience uni facility....but do not see it as a hard sell opportunity for uni or UTAS....hopefully you just open their eyes to what is available. Do it right and it will translate to numbers.....many take a gap year now so it may take a few years to see the result of your work

I know it is an issue of potential future "bums on seats" for UTAS; however, the program has higher importance about real education issues, in my mind.


22

Sorry but have found this too time consuming to complete


15. Please comment on which aspects of the program are the motivating factors for participating students.

# Question Very Motivating

Motivating Neutral Not Motivating

Not Motivating At All

Responses Mean

1 HECS scholarships 13 9 2 1 0 25 1.64

2 Introducing students to university level study and life. 4 11 8 1 0 24 2.25


18 7 0 0 0 25 1.28

4 An opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills in a particular area of study.

6 19 0 0 0 25 1.76

5 An opportunity to challenge and extend themselves. 8 17 0 0 0 25 1.68

6 Boosting their confidence to undertake university level study. 5 16 4 0 0 25 1.96

7 Status 5 8 8 2 2 25 2.52

8 Improving their TCE performance. 7 13 4 1 0 25 1.96

9 Passion for a subject 16 9 0 0 0 25 1.36

10 Marketing & promotion of the unit 0 12 12 0 1 25 2.60

11 Parental encouragement 2 14 7 2 0 25 2.36

12 Teacher encouragement/recommendation 10 13 2 0 0 25 1.68


23

13 Feedback from previous students 9 8 7 1 0 25 2.00

Statistic HECS scholarships



An opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills in a particular area of study.

An opportunity to challenge and extend themselves.

Boosting their confidence to undertake university level study.

Status

Improving their TCE performance.

Passion for a subject

Marketing & promotion of the unit

Parental encouragement

Teacher encouragement/recommendation

Feedback from previous students

Mean 1.64 2.25 1.28 1.76 1.68 1.96 2.52 1.96 1.36 2.60 2.36 1.68 2.00

Variance

0.66 0.63 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.37 1.34 0.62 0.24 0.50 0.57 0.39 0.83

Standard Deviati

0.81 0.79 0.46 0.44 0.48 0.61 1.16 0.79 0.49 0.71 0.76 0.63 0.91


24

on

Total Responses

25 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

16. Comments:

Text Response passion passion passion

TQA removal of course from syllabus forcing students into UTAS course

Feedback not relevant this year but may be next year, as HIT lab wasn't run last year.

It is the intrinsic interest in a subject area which is the highest motivating factor. The other considerations are merely icing on the cake.


17. How well do you feel you know and understand the following aspects of the University College Program?

# Question Very well Well Neutral Not well Don't know anything Responses Mean 1 UCP aims and objectives 8 16 2 2 1 29 2.03

2 Student selection process 4 17 4 2 2 29 2.34

3 Unit pre-requisites 5 15 3 6 0 29 2.34

4 Program rules and regulations 4 15 3 7 0 29 2.45


25

5 Assessment processes 4 14 2 9 0 29 2.55

Statistic UCP aims and objectives Student selection process Unit pre-requisites Program rules and regulations Assessment processes Mean 2.03 2.34 2.34 2.45 2.55

Variance 0.96 1.09 1.02 1.04 1.18



18. How important to students is the current practice of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement (NOTE: this is not an option for mainstream university students).

# Answer

Response % 1 Very important

21 81%

2 Important

5 19%

3 Not important

0 0%

Total 26 100%


Variance 0.16



26

Total Responses 26

19. Comments:

Text Response they know not what they do!

I thought they had to withdraw by census date.

Students need to at least sit their mid year exams before deciding whether to continue or quit. Their uni results should not be penalised if they are uncertain in Grade 12.

I have been asking for clarification re those students who might stick with course and engage in all work but not meet standard for pass (PP). TCE would give a Preliminary Achievement (PA) - this still attracts 15 TCE points (not TER of course)

The most important thing for TCE students is passing their TCE subjects, and if something happens during the year which makes the University study onerous, it would be a shame for them to have a penalty when it is something that they have taken on as an extra.

The students are TCE, not university students. Many are not of adult age when they enrol. They need the safety net of not being penalised later for overcommitment or change of circumstances while they are still quite young and inexperienced of worldly matters.


20. Success in a UCP unit should count towards a:

# Answer

Response % 1 Diploma

3 12%

2 Associate Degree

1 4%


27

3 Degree

20 80%

4 Other (please specify below)

1 4%

Total 25 100%


Variance 0.52


Total Responses 25

21. Comments:

Text Response all

Any success in UCP should be recognised in whatever course the student should subsequently choose to follow.

Not sure yet - be interesting to see what standards are in eyes of UTAS

I think it should count towards something, even if just RPL of 1 unit.

If they are deemed to reach the same standard as first year students, then their awards should have the same status.



28

22. What is the most appropriate way to support and recognise the contribution of college/school teacher working with the UCP?

# Answer

Response % 1 Certificate

1 4%

2 Letter of appreciation

6 25%

3 Opportunity to undertake further study or research

7 29%

4 Thank you event or ceremony

6 25%


4 17%

Total 24 100%


Variance 1.33


Total Responses 24

23. Please indicate subject area or areas in which you have been involved?

# Answer

Response % 1 Aboriginal Studies

0 0%

2 Asian Languages

10 31%


29

3 Business/accounting

0 0%

4 Conservatorium of Music

6 19%

5 European Languages

10 31%

6 Human Interface Technology

3 9%

7 Philosophy

1 3%

8 Visual and Performing Arts (north)

9 28%

9 Asian Studies

4 13%

10 School of the Arts (south)

0 0%


24. Please indicate approximately how many of your students have participated in the University College Program.

# Answer

Response % 1 1 - 5

8 25%

2 6 - 10

8 25%

3 11 - 50

12 38%

4 51 - 100

1 3%

5 More than 100

2 6%


30

6 Not sure

1 3%

Total 32 100%


Variance 1.61


Total Responses 32

25. Comments:

Text Response I would like more information on the various assessment processes and more communication with the school about how students are progressing.

It was not clear until recently that students who have lived in Japan are ineligible for the Japanese course in the future.

Relevance to AAP curriculuim could be tighter Assessment guidelines could be clearer

There is no 'selection' process by UTAS currently. They assess, college does rest. Pre-requisites yet to be really defined - going on previous Music Performance (now defunct) course re standards. UTAS regularly in touch and encouraging sharing of ideas and resources. Meetings called to discuss concerns - a positive thing.

I have significant concerns about the extent to which UTAS assesses the students. I feel it relies too heavily on TCE results in Languages and Performing Arts

I am disappointed that as a teacher I still do not know my students" results.

I am happy with the communication I have had with representatives of the CLP. All questions have been answered promptly and I have appreciated feed back on my students from those administering the course. I think that there could be more precise info on who is eligible and how assignments are assessed.


31


26. How important

# Question Important Neutral Not important Responses Mean 1 Access to UTAS library 13 9 5 27 1.70

2 Interaction with UTAS lecturers 22 4 1 27 1.22

3 On-campus workshops 23 3 1 27 1.19

4 Step-Up program 8 18 0 26 1.69

5 Self-directed study opportunities 17 8 1 26 1.38

6 Colloquiums 11 14 0 25 1.56

7 School visits by lecturers 22 4 1 27 1.22

8 Interaction with other university students 11 13 3 27 1.70

9 Other (please specify below) 0 7 0 7 2.00

10 MyLO access and support 10 11 1 22 1.59

Statistic Access to UTAS library

Interaction with UTAS lecturers

On-campus workshops

Step-Up program

Self-directed study opportunities

Colloquiums School visits by lecturers

Interaction with other university students

Other (please specify below)

MyLO access and support

Mean 1.70 1.22 1.19 1.69 1.38 1.56 1.22 1.70 2.00 1.59


32

Variance 0.60 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.45 0.00 0.35

Standard Deviation

0.78 0.51 0.48 0.47 0.57 0.51 0.51 0.67 0.00 0.59

Total Responses

27 27 27 26 26 25 27 27 7 22

27. Current provision

# Question Adequate Neutral Insufficient Don't know Responses Mean 1 Access to UTAS library 11 6 1 7 25 2.16

2 Interaction with UTAS lecturers 13 2 8 1 24 1.88

3 On-campus workshops 15 2 6 2 25 1.80

4 Step-Up program 6 8 2 9 25 2.56

5 Self-directed study opportunities 11 8 0 6 25 2.04

6 Colloquiums 7 10 1 6 24 2.25

7 School visits by lecturers 5 10 9 1 25 2.24

8 Interaction with other university students 2 11 9 3 25 2.52

9 Other (please specify below) 0 4 0 3 7 2.86

10 MyLO access and support 4 8 4 6 22 2.55

Statistic Access to UTAS

Interaction with UTAS

On-campus workshops

Step-Up program

Self-directed study


Interaction with other university

Other (please

MyLO access and


33

library lecturers opportunities students specify below)

support

Mean 2.16 1.88 1.80 2.56 2.04 2.25 2.24 2.52 2.86 2.55

Variance 1.64 1.07 1.17 1.51 1.46 1.33 0.69 0.68 1.14 1.21

Standard Deviation

1.28 1.03 1.08 1.23 1.21 1.15 0.83 0.82 1.07 1.10

Total Responses

25 24 25 25 25 24 25 25 7 22

28. Comments:

Text Response The Colloquium was well organised but the day was far too long, it should have finished by 2pm. It would be good if you got feedback from students....mine from them was that it was too long and consequently ended up bored. Some guests really challenged the students....others did not.

University lecturer and college staff interaction needs to be developed as the teacher implementing the program is not the only one in our college responsible for it.


29. Comments:

Text Response if they do a good job! most just want to have their students extended...

Resources to help teach the students. Money. Students are worth money to the university but none seems to come down to the colleges.


34

Events take up more time.

Some teachers seeking future promotion may wish to have some written form of evidence to support their CV. Most teachers would simply like a thank you. I personally don't think a ceremony or anything wuite so formal is necessary.

hmmm Don't know. UTAS should consider some $ contribution to college - be it in curriculum support, teaching requisites, staff support, professional learning activities. Colleges are using their own facilities and support (photocopying, Cds, ICT etc) - will UTAS contribute?

I think that most teachers wouldn't need to be thanked in any of these ways, we would rather see the students having an enriched learning experience.

I don't seek or need recognition for what I do in this regard. I would prefer to be listened to and my advice considered and see some evidence of this in future developments of the Program.


30. It has been suggested that the UCP has the potential to encourage students to undertake a Degree plus a Diploma to ‘add value’ to their university studies – for example Bachelor of Business and Diploma of Languages, Bachelor of Science and Diploma of Visual and Performing Arts. Do you think:

# Answer

Response % 1 This idea has merit and is likely to attract students

15 63%

2 This idea has merit but is unlikely to attract students

7 29%

3 This idea has little merit

2 8%

Total 24 100%

Statistic Value


35

Mean 1.46

Variance 0.43


Total Responses 24

31. Comments:

Text Response Not sure, but worth a try.

Some students with a passion for a particular subject which is not necessarily related to their degree or major focus of study might be attracted to the opportunity to 'value add' in this way.

I do not know.


32. Have you visited the University College Program page of the UTAS College website?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

14 54%

2 No

12 46%

Total 26 100%


36


Variance 0.26


Total Responses 26

33. If yes, how useful did you find the information?

# Answer

Response % 1 Useful

7 47%

2 Neutral

8 53%

3 Not useful

0 0%

Total 15 100%


Variance 0.27


Total Responses 15

34. Overall, what do you see as the 3 main benefits of the University College Program?


37

Text Response Introducing students to uni life Meeting other students Developing understanding of the unit issues

extension look inside uni hopefully compliment their TCE studies

engagement, attainment of qualification and connection to people that can further develop knowledge and skill.

Challenges able students Gives opportunity to pursue a particular area of interest gives students a taste of university life

Having language classes and segments presented in another manner other than mine, therefore getting a better overall view of the TCE course. Having direct contact occasionally with native speakers.

Opportunity for students to experience university life Extend high achieving students Encourage them to enrol in further education

Enhance student's ability motivation for further study opportunity to advance their study eg not having to repeat material

Enables students to continue with studies at college since their courses have been withdrawn by TQA.

Motivating and extending students. Improve TCE score or get some type of credit which will improve student's chances of acceptance into a preferred course. Relationships between Uni and colleges - share course content and teaching practices.

-Students gain uni credit for a course they were doing anyway.(It bothered me in the past that they had to go straight into 2nd year uni, but without receiving credit for first year) -motivation, different teacher, more fun -no cost, just commitment

Opportunities to deepen understanding of subject Learn uni academic expectations One free uni subject

1. Opportunity to receive HECS free accrediation for subject, with not much more content to acquire. 2. Possiblity of better mark in subject as a result of extra work 3. Demystification of university and extra confidence to enrol in degree course

Enrichment Academic focus Building UTAS and College relationship

Connection with Conservatorium, credit for students, HECS scholarship

Encourages tertiary study. Potential for better TCE mark. Develops collegiality and collaboration between secondary and tertiary sector.


38

Pathway strength connections student motivation/engagement

Use of MyLo Enrichment Possible future learning paths become better defined.

-introduction to university environment -extension of students' proficiency in the language -future rewards in their university studies

Extending high achievers letting them get to know future lecturers at UTAS Letting them familiarise themselves with UTAS buildings / layout

It allows students to gain the equivalent of a university subject which encourages them to continue with their study of languages. It also gives them the opportunity to see that they have the ability to study at university level. The languages course is also excellent revision for the TCE course that they already study.

Inspiration for high flying TCE students. Developing deep interest in the subject area. The opportunity for high flyers to do more once they get to uni, because they already have 2 - 4 units towards their first degree.

university credit early for students ability to work in a tertiary context extention of high flyers

University credits, TCE points, encouraging students to go to university

helping TCE motivating students introducing students to uni

HECS free units develop links between Uni and Colleges prepare students for Uni


35. What do you see as the 3 main limitations of the University Colege Program?

Text Response Big one in AAP is coming in on a Sunday three times - when college students have jobs, sport, studies, travel problems. Our problem is getting it established in the first place and lack of school support

College teachers already have a very full teaching load. UTAS needs to be very careful that the program does not add extra stress to the teachers as this could put them off


39

encouraging students to participate.

not getting in to the uni regularly not getting to utilise their lecturers not getting to utilise their facilities

environmental...spending more time at the venue. Inequitable expectations between programs. Time.

Would like to see more subjects available Would be helpful to have timetable earlier as students' school programmes are set in place in November prior

colloquium is virtually the only opportunity to be on the uni campus Finding time at college to meet with uni staff

Expectation by CLP that subject teachers will photocopy inform of changes upcoming events etc to students. Students see their subject teachers to help them with course content. Essentially time contrianst to deliver what theCLP asks

University connections are not great for NW students. We see little benefit.

Very little face to face contact and discussion between teachers of both organisations. Limited number of courses - very arts based courses on offer. Little collaboration between College personnel and University on what college would like. Often put forward wish to be involved in an area but hear nothing back.

-should be organised and start earlier in the year -teachers should receive feedback about the compulsory sessions at uni... how did our students go?

Connection to TQA syllabus Access of students and teachers to uni staff Only 3 key dates for class sessions.

1. Added stress during the year to meet assignment requirements and to maintain school subjects at appropriate level. 2. Students don't have opportunity to develop the same kind of relationship with UTAS tutor that they do with their school teacher

Enrolment process Time

communication with Conservatorium is minimal, little contact with University lecturers, assessments ambiguous

Some students find co-curricular and extra-curricular commitments are too time consuming. Expectations re standards are sometimes not made clear.

still playing a bit of 'catch up' - new course. All teachers need to have common understanding and goals.

Lack of time on the part of College Teachers to talk through the UTAS College days after they have occurred. Particularly those teachers who have to teach Beginners and Continuersat the same time. Students may neglect some College work to complete UCP work


40

Students not able to study more than 2 subjects over 2 years. Students who for reasons out of their control not able to enrol in the course because they are not available for one or both of the workshops.

The current assessment system. The time frame for processing of results for students and institutions. The lack of unified administration by UTAS.

lack of consultation with key stakeholders in colleges (Learning Area Leaders) difficulties for students when enrolling around their previous enrolment for first round offers lack of university staffs understanding of what happens in senior secondary programs

Timely communication with UTAS lecturers, timely meetings of the assessemnt panel, having to work very hard to make sure that on-campus lecturers that have been promised to a school, actually come to the school

lack of scholarshipps to deserving international students ( scholarships are available in the High Achievers Program)

life and death eg if a student cannot attend one of the week end seminar they cannot make up in another way Over use of on line curricula extra work for their teachers at College


36. Your recommendation for the future of the University College Program would be:

# Answer

Response % 1 Continue and expand

9 35%

2 Continue as is

7 27%

3 Continue with minor modifications (explain below)

8 31%

4 Continue with major modifications (explain below)

2 8%

5 Do not continue with this program

0 0%


41

Total 26 100%


Variance 0.99


Total Responses 26

37. Comments:

Text Response From a visual arts program....run some classes eg life drawing...soething that is difficult to access in post secondary education. May only run for 3 weeks....but they would remember Give them a safe area to physically visit...eg a small room shows value of program

Needs to be more workshops, perhaps 2nd colloquium Assessment still needs to be clarified, college involvement

Better organized before the term commences. Being able to know who to contact for concerns etc CLP take responsibilty for helping students enrol, photocopy info etc

Resourcing.

Modifications related to previous comments - more variety in courses, more collaboration and face to face contact, also like to see some review on assessment processes - some appear more rigorous that others - I think it should be rigorous but course should be comparable - some credit points are given just for participating in a College event while others have assignments etc of varying degrees of time and effort required. Lot of organisational aspects unclear as is the vision.

I believe if it expands too much, it loses status and value to students, it becomes a requirement/expectation rather than a challenge.

Improve delivery. Keep going!

assessments refined, stronger links between teachers and lecturers

Have a system in place to allow students who are not able to attend a workshop for very good reasons (and ONLY for good reasons!) to still be able to participate in the


42

program.

I've said minor modifications above because from my point of view the strengths outweigh the weaknesses by far. However, I believe the assessment, publication of results and the poor coordination from central administration are MAJOR weaknesses which need immediate attention, for 2010 and beyond. I would see it as a very retregrade step by UTAS if the program did not continue beyond this year.

It is a great program and it should grow but I think the uni nees to get their hands dirty in the colleges and see what goes on and talk to the Teams of people in each area so their is shared understanding because it is hard to promote without collective responsibility. At the moment our delivering teachers work in isolation and the rest of their department has no idea what happens.

mush more publicity needs to be done in Year 10


38. Do you have any other suggestions or comments for how UTAS and the senior secondary sector may further the aims of UTAS College as outlined in the preamble to this survey (or as available on the UTAS College website www.utas.edu.au/utas-college/what-is-utas-college)?

Text Response no

More opportunities for a group at a school to undertake semester units from the university programme with support from a school teacher and some input from a university tutor (perhaps something like the Philosophy trial at GYC in 2009, though I don't know much about this and gather there were some complications).

I think it would be very helpful if a committee of representatives from UTAS and schools and colleges was formed to oversee this program. I would also be very happy to discuss my ideas more fully with UTAS representatives. Jim Mayne, Head of Teaching and Learning, Scotch Oakburn College.



43

Appendix 4: Online Survey Questions and Responses – College/School Principals

Initial Report College/School Principals Last Modified: 05/19/2010





Responses Mean

1 The University College Program is valued by our school/college. 6 4 1 0 0 11 1.55

2 The University College Program is valued by our students. 3 6 2 0 0 11 1.91

3 The University College Program is valued by our parents. 3 7 1 0 0 11 1.82

4 The University College Program is valued by UTAS. 4 5 2 0 0 11 1.82

5 The University College Program is widely known and understood by staff at our school/college.

1 3 1 5 1 11 3.18

6 The University College Program is widely known and understood by students at our school/college.

0 3 4 4 0 11 3.09

7 The University College Program is widely known and understood by parents at our school/college.

0 2 3 4 2 11 3.55

Statistic The University College Program is valued by our

The University College Program is



The University College Program is widely known and understood




44

school/college. valued by our students.

valued by our parents.

valued by UTAS.

by staff at our school/college.

by students at our school/college.

by parents at our school/college.

Mean 1.55 1.91 1.82 1.82 3.18 3.09 3.55

Variance 0.47 0.49 0.36 0.56 1.56 0.69 1.07

Standard Deviation

0.69 0.70 0.60 0.75 1.25 0.83 1.04

Total Responses

11 11 11 11 11 11 11

2. Comments:

Text Response Statistic Value Total Responses 0




Responses Mean


2 General information and communication about the program 1 7 2 1 0 11 2.27

3 Specific information and communication about individual units of study 1 4 6 0 0 11 2.45

4 Information and communication about student outcomes 0 6 4 1 0 11 2.55

5 Time students are required to devote to UTAS studies 0 6 3 2 0 11 2.64


45

6 Level of support offered to participating students via UTAS services (library, MyLO)

2 5 4 0 0 11 2.18

7 Assessment methodologies and processes 1 4 6 0 0 11 2.45


9 Relationship to TCE 0 7 3 0 1 11 2.55

10 Opportunities for you to be involved in the program and decision making 2 3 3 3 0 11 2.64

11 Opportunities for you to collaborate with educators at UTAS 2 2 6 1 0 11 2.55









Relationship to TCE


Opportunities for you to collaborate with educators at UTAS

Mean 2.09 2.27 2.45 2.55 2.64 2.18 2.45 2.73 2.55 2.64 2.55

Variance 0.49 0.62 0.47 0.47 0.65 0.56 0.47 0.22 0.87 1.25 0.87

Standard Deviation

0.70 0.79 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.75 0.69 0.47 0.93 1.12 0.93

Total Respons

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11


46

es

4. Comments:

Text Response



# Answer

Response % 1 1

3 30%

2 2

7 70%

3 3

0 0%

4 4

0 0%


0 0%

Total 10 100%


47


Variance 0.23


Total Responses 10

6. Comments:

Text Response One stretched over a year is a good model- or one in Semester 1 only.


7. How many one-semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary student should be able to count towards their TCE results (and TER) in this program?

# Answer

Response % 1 1

1 10%

2 2

9 90%

3 3

0 0%


48

4 4

0 0%


0 0%

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.10


Total Responses 10

8. Comments:

Text Response One or two units but there must be a better recognition of the amount and level of work involved, e.g the Computer based Hit-lab course is only one un it but is very demanding or student time and the points score reward is very poor in this regard.

One per year.



# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 Responses


49

1 College/school recommendation 4 2 3 0 0 9





Total 9 9 9 9 9

Statistic College/school recommendation

Student/parent request

Previous academic performance

Student commitment/drive


Mean 1.89 3.89 1.89 2.33 5.00

Variance 0.86 0.11 0.36 1.25 0.00

Standard Deviation

0.93 0.33 0.60 1.12 0.00



Text Response



50




















Unit evaluation.

Program evaluation.

Mean 2.00 2.20 2.00 2.60 2.60 2.70 2.30 2.60 2.50 2.60


51

Variance 1.11 1.07 1.00 0.49 0.27 0.46 0.90 0.27 0.28 0.27

Standard Deviation

1.05 1.03 1.00 0.70 0.52 0.67 0.95 0.52 0.53 0.52

Total Responses

10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

12. Comments:

Text Response






Responses Mean



7 2 1 0 0 10 1.40


7 3 0 0 0 10 1.30

4 Expanding students' knowledge and skills in a 7 3 0 0 0 10 1.30


52

particular area of study.


9 1 0 0 0 10 1.10


6 4 0 0 0 10 1.40



3 4 3 0 0 10 2.00


0 8 2 0 0 10 2.20

10 Opportunity to improve students' TCE performance.

3 5 2 0 0 10 1.90













Mean 1.20 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 1.40 1.50 2.00 2.20 1.90 1.70

Variance 0.18 0.49 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.27 0.28 0.67 0.18 0.54 0.46


53

Standard Deviation

0.42 0.70 0.48 0.48 0.32 0.52 0.53 0.82 0.42 0.74 0.67

Total Responses

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

14. Comments:

Text Response






Responses Mean




7 2 0 0 0 9 1.22


3 7 0 0 0 10 1.70


54



7 Status 0 5 4 1 0 10 2.60


9 Passion for a subject 4 6 0 0 0 10 1.60

10 Marketing & promotion of the unit 1 2 7 0 0 10 2.60

11 Parental encouragement 1 8 1 0 0 10 2.00

12 Teacher encouragement/recommendation 6 4 0 0 0 10 1.40

13 Feedback from previous students 3 6 1 0 0 10 1.80


Introducing students to university level study

Providing students with credit towards a

An opportunity to expand their knowledge and

An opportunity to challenge and extend themselv

Boosting their confidence to undertake universi

Status



Marketing & promotion of the unit





55

and life. university award program.

skills in a particular area of study.

es. ty level study.

Mean 1.40 1.70 1.22 1.70 1.70 1.90 2.60 2.00 1.60 2.60 2.00 1.40 1.80

Variance

0.49 0.46 0.19 0.23 0.46 0.54 0.49 0.67 0.27 0.49 0.22 0.27 0.40

Standard Deviation

0.70 0.67 0.44 0.48 0.67 0.74 0.70 0.82 0.52 0.70 0.47 0.52 0.63

Total Responses

10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

16. Comments:

Text Response



56




3 Unit pre-requisites 1 4 3 2 1 11 2.82



Statistic UCP aims and objectives Student selection process Unit pre-requisites Program rules and regulations Assessment processes Mean 1.73 2.18 2.82 2.91 3.00

Variance 0.82 1.16 1.36 0.89 1.20



18. How important to students is the current practice of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement (NOTE: this is not an option for mainstream university students).

# Answer


8 80%

2 Important

2 20%

3 Not important

0 0%


57

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.18


Total Responses 10

19. Comments:

Text Response



# Answer


0 0%

2 Associate Degree

3 30%

3 Degree

5 50%


2 20%


58

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.54


Total Responses 10

21. Comments:

Text Response Depends on the unit provided.

Any of these


22. What is the most appropriate way to support and recognise the contribution of college/school teacher working with the UCP?

# Answer

Response % 1 Certificate

1 10%

2 Letter of appreciation

4 40%


59

3 Opportunity to undertake further study or research

2 20%

4 Thank you event or ceremony

3 30%


0 0%

Total 10 100%


Variance 1.12


Total Responses 10

23. Please indicate subject area or areas in which your college/school has been involved?

# Answer

Response % 1 Aboriginal Studies

1 9%

2 Asian Languages

5 45%


2 18%


10 91%


5 45%


3 27%


60

7 Philosophy

2 18%


5 45%

9 Asian Studies

0 0%


3 27%


24. Please indicate approximately how many of your students have participated in the University College Program.

# Answer

Response % 1 1 - 5

1 9%

2 6 - 10

0 0%

3 11 - 50

9 82%

4 51 - 100

1 9%

5 More than 100

0 0%

6 Not sure

0 0%

Total 11 100%



61

Variance 0.49


Total Responses 11

25. Comments:

Text Response As principal I do not directly oversee the students so do not have intimate knowledge about process

As our students have only started to be involved, I have not previously needed to consider these elements. However, now I do and I do not find the information easily accessible.


26. How important







62

6 Colloquiums 5 5 0 10 1.50







On-campus workshops

Step-Up program






Mean 1.30 1.10 1.10 2.11 1.10 1.50 1.50 1.20 2.33 1.56

Variance 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.33 0.53

Standard Deviation

0.48 0.32 0.32 0.60 0.32 0.53 0.53 0.42 0.58 0.73

Total Responses

10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 3 9






63

4 Step-Up program 0 5 0 4 9 2.89


6 Colloquiums 5 4 0 0 9 1.44







On-campus workshops

Step-Up program






Mean 1.67 2.00 2.25 2.89 1.89 1.44 2.13 2.67 3.00 2.25

Variance 1.25 1.25 1.07 1.11 0.86 0.28 0.41 0.75 2.00 1.36

Standard Deviation

1.12 1.12 1.04 1.05 0.93 0.53 0.64 0.87 1.41 1.16

Total Responses

9 9 8 9 9 9 8 9 2 8

28. Comments:

Text Response


64


29. Comments:

Text Response all of these



# Answer


7 70%


2 20%


1 10%

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.49


65


Total Responses 10

31. Comments:

Text Response



# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

6 60%

2 No

4 40%

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.27



66

Total Responses 10


# Answer

Response % 1 Useful

5 83%

2 Neutral

1 17%

3 Not useful

0 0%

Total 6 100%


Variance 0.17


Total Responses 6


Text Response 1. High achieving students can improve their ATAR and get into courses such as medicine. 2. Students achieve credit points towards university qualifications 3. HECs


67

savings

Familiarising excellent students with University level pf learning. Rewarding and encouraging very talented students to move beyond school level learning as soon as they show readidness in their senior years. Receiving the HECs scholarship in recognition of their beginning into university learning

Links with UTAS and colleges Students learn about the demands and programs of UTAS extending bright studnets

Encouragement, extension, familiarity with the university

Offering students an opportunity to further their studies at a university level Gaining credit towards their TCE Developing further in an area of interest

Extending student's knowledge and skills Strengthening pathwasy to UTAS No HECS

Building aspirations in young people Enriching the learning of young people Developing the pathways from Year 12 to University

HIT Lab pd for school teachers who are involved in the programme another learning influence for older students

improving retention to university. broadening a student's college program catering for high achievers


35. What do you see as the 3 main limitations of the University College Program?

Text Response 1. Inequitable access to courses especially for schools not in Hobart or Launceston. 2. It highlights that first university courses are often at a similar level of difficulty to pre-tertiary courses, which indicates a "dumbing down" of university.

The late assessment snet to schools re the Arts results. The low TCE points recognition for students from this program - can be the dirrerence between a student getting into their chosen faculty or not - hardly a reward for this advanced study! Poor and little forward planning and rushed introduction of the program at a very busy time for schools.


68

busy schedules of both organisations busy students eg p/t work commitments as well as study need broader range of pathways on offer

distance and timetabling for HAP;

Organisation of enrolment and information between the school and UTAS needs more work Students using the UTAS course as an option to study within the College

Support for students participating in the program

The pedagogy used in some programs on UTAS campus is dull and not motivating Difference in work requirements between different areas of study We need more information on the content and pre-requistes before students are selected

Good schools are just as good opr better at providing some of the learning opportunities that UTAS now 'owns'. a thinly veiled UTAS marketing strategy ... the pro vice chancellor used the term 'bums on seats'. taking some good subjects out of schools hands where they were better placed and giving them to the university.little evidence that this has created beneficial outcomes in those subjects

limited access to UTas staff limited opportunities to be on a UTas campus limited range of offerings



# Answer


6 60%

2 Continue as is

2 20%


2 20%


0 0%


0 0%


69

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.71


Total Responses 10

37. Comments:

Text Response I would like to see the program expand so that there is equitable access to all schools, otherwise it should not continue.

Attend to the TCE points/score problem. Forward communicate with schools and be less demanding about when the introduction can occur in the school given the very busy start to each year. Only take academically strongest students.

Update pedagogy More meeting of UTAS faculties and college/academy teachers


38. Do you have any other suggestions or comments for how UTAS and the senior secondary sector may further the aims of UTAS College as outlined in the preamble to this survey (or as available on the UTAS College website www.utas.edu.au/utas-college/what-is-utas-college)?

Text Response


70



71

Appendix 5: Online Survey Questions and Responses – UTAS Staff

Initial Report UTAS Staff






Responses Mean

1 The University College Program is valued schools/colleges. 6 4 2 0 0 12 1.67

2 The University College Program is valued by participating students. 5 7 0 0 0 12 1.58

3 The University College Program is valued by my school/faculty. 4 3 3 2 0 12 2.25

4 The University College Program is widely known and understood by your school/faculty staff.

3 4 3 2 0 12 2.33

5 The University College Program is widely known and understood schools/colleges.

0 7 3 2 0 12 2.58

6 The University College Program is widely known and understood by school/college students.

0 7 3 1 1 12 2.67

2. Comments:

Text Response Faculty administration has been very enthusiastic about UCP, but most schools and academics are much less so.

The middle option here is being used to represent the answer 'some do and some don't'. Here I'm assuming the questions are about participating schools and colleges.


72

I'd be much more pessimistic about schools and colleges as a whole.




Responses Mean


2 Student selection process. 3 5 3 0 0 11 2.00

3 Unit selection process. 3 3 3 0 0 9 2.00

4 Unit development process. 2 4 2 0 1 9 2.33

5 Unit organisation. 3 6 2 0 0 11 1.91

6 Unit delivery. 5 3 1 2 0 11 2.00

7 Unit moderation & assessment. 4 4 1 1 1 11 2.18


9 Feedback and communication with UTAS College . 2 5 2 1 1 11 2.45

10 Support for UTAS staff teaching in the UCP. 0 6 2 2 1 11 2.82

11 Resources 1 3 3 2 1 10 2.90

12 Support offered to students. 2 3 4 1 1 11 2.64

13 Opportunities to meet and collaborate with college staff about the program as a whole.

3 3 3 1 1 11 2.45

14 Opportunities to collaborate with college/school teachers about your 2 3 4 1 1 11 2.64


73

discipline.

4. Comments:

Text Response All opportunities to collaborate with college teachers have been created by myself. I have had a high level of autonomy by neccesity - I have had to do things by myself due to lack of contact, guidance, support and structure from UCP. The problems with enrolment and admin hasve been extremely detrimental to my program. I am also not ahppy about this evaluation going out to anyone connected with my unit - I do not want college teachers to be filling in this survey until our unit is ciompleted and I ahve ahd a chance to communicate with them myself.

Some dissatisfaction is self induced. It takes time and organisation to meet with college teachers and to therefore be able to delivery a truly integrate and targeted course. UCP is a time-consuming project, and one amongst many.

I can't really speak to two of these points. The unit I was involved in was pre-existing and the only one on offer to the relevant colleges, and so unit selection and development don't really seem to be at issue. I should clarify that the points of major dissatisfaction here reflect the readiness of other parts of the university to undertake a UCP pilot, rather than the UCP itself.


# Answer

Response % 1 1

2 20%

2 2

6 60%

3 3

1 10%

4 4

1 10%


0 0%

Total 10 100%


74

6. Comments:

Text Response If languages are counted as 25% (two units) then the limit has to be more than 2 or else those students cannot do another unit such as Asian Studies

one in year 11, two in year 12 - but depending on the capabilities of the student. If we could offer a UTAS college certificate made up of foundation and first year units and this counted towards their TER - I would be a very enthusiastic supporter of offering two foundation units in year 11 and two first year units in year 12.

This has been the subject of unhappiness among some academic staff in my school and on my campus. The current program is viewed by some in the Arts Faculty as a race to lock students into a major as early as possible. While not of that view, I think that a full scale pre-tertiary program will rapidly head that way if uni departments as a whole sign up for it.

I don't think a fully loaded Academy student should have the capability of doing more than one unit - their pre-tertiary subjects should be taking up significant study time.


# Answer

Response % 1 1

2 29%

2 2

3 43%

3 3

0 0%

4 4

2 29%


0 0%

Total 7 100%


75

8. Comments:

Text Response no idea

Not sure why Utas units should count towards TCE results.

To be honest, I wasn't happy with the way this aspect of our trial developed, and I'd favour zero. There have been regular accusations, from other colleges, of double dipping arrangements. I think just offering university units is far more transparent, and keeps us out of the ongoing politicking about the TCE that colleges do.


# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 Responses 1 Teacher recommendation 3 4 4 0 0 11





Total 11 11 11 11 11


Text Response Personally meeting UTAS lecturers before enrolment

For my program, the only requirment is interest.

These don't seem very clearly separated; I'm not sure how you measure commitment except insofar as the teacher recommends the student or the student puts in a


76

request. In our pilot, the pattern was for teachers to be far too optimistic in recommending students who simply couldn't handle things. I feel that the teachers we dealt with, while all extremely committed and engaging people, had reasons of their own (in lining up their teaching, or in getting college resources, or simply in virtue of their own enthusiasm) for trying to reach larger cohorts. I don't think that served anyone well in the end. One of the aspects of the pilot that left me most unhappy was the way in which this practice meant that many students were left with the counterproductive impression that uni was just too much for them, when they had simply been pushed a bit too much into something that didn't fit their work timetable. I've put academic performance at bottom simply because of the importance of targeting the main bump of the distribution of student competence.













77

12. Comments:

Text Response what do you mean by pastoral care? do you mean academic support or counselling about life issues? there is a big difference In terms of scheduling info sessions, I eprsonally believe that teh best results are achieved by teaching staff visiting the actual classes of stduents who could be enrolled. I dont think general sessions are particulary useful if the actual teaching staff are not involved.





Responses Mean



4 5 1 0 0 10 1.70


5 1 4 0 0 10 1.90


6 3 1 0 0 10 1.50


5 2 3 0 0 10 1.80


8 1 1 0 0 10 1.30



78


2 4 4 0 0 10 2.20


3 4 2 1 0 10 2.10


1 5 4 0 0 10 2.30


14. Comments:

Text Response Answering these questions depends on the viewpoint: FOR WHOM should they be important, this is not mentioned. HECS scholarships could be important for students to get them to take part, but may not be important to me as lecturer, as I, for example, might consider them to be inequitable, since students enrolling through normal channels don't get a HECS exemption. I may find it important for a programme to challenge and extend, encourage students to go on to Utas, but I don't wish my comments to be used as conformation that that is what it achieves.

I feel rather as though I'm picking on the high achievers in these questions, and I'm certainly not hostile to forming relationships with them (nor, indeed, to doing so as a way of marketing UTas as a good choice for them). But whether we are motivated by furthering our own growth ambitions or by confronting the educational anaemia of Tasmania, it simply makes sense to tilt the UCP as a mass (and not high end) program. And if we do so, it's the big cultural and attitudinal shifts that are important, not the race for market share within our uni.





Responses Mean




79


5 3 2 0 0 10 1.70


2 7 1 0 0 10 1.90



7 Status 1 3 3 2 0 9 2.67


9 Passion for subject. 3 5 2 0 0 10 1.90

10 Marketing & promotion of the unit. 1 2 6 0 0 9 2.56

11 Parental encouragement. 1 3 3 1 0 8 2.50

12 Teacher encouragement/ recommendation 4 6 0 0 0 10 1.60

13 Feedback from previous students. 2 4 2 0 0 8 2.00

16. Comments:

Text Response actaully I have no idea. I do know that the college teachers have bene enthusiastic and that has translated into enrolments

I can't comment on parental encouragement or previous student feedback. Note that I think teacher encouragement is a very mixed blessing (see earlier answers). The HECS waiver seems to me to have been a bit of a marketing fiasco in my area. (i) There's a price point fixation issue: we're training students up to regard the worth of a unit as zero. (ii) Having paid zero, students didn't have any sunk cost motivations - we had massive withdrawals when assessment fell due. Even a token fee of $50 would help students over that hurdle. (iii) The fee waiver, coupled with the 'withdrawal at any time before the final exam' policy, in effect tells students that this isn't anything very serious. Quite apart from the price we're inviting students to place on our offerings, we're also sending a pretty dire signal about how we view the worth of what we


80

do. This isn't to say that fee reductions and the like aren't a good idea. But this one seems to have been innocent of any marketing nous at all. If we want students to be excited at the special deal they are getting, we first need to establish the normal cost. For instance, we could establish the normal tariff, and then require students to fill out a form making a verbal case for a fee reduction (to something like $100).

17. Which type of unit do you believe works best in the University College Program model?

# Answer

Response % 1 Unit mapped against existing TCE subjects with extension opportunities provided by UTAS.

3 30%

2 Full university unit offered in addition to (or replacing a) TCE subjects.

3 30%

3 Both work equally well

3 30%

4 Don't know.

1 10%

Total 10 100%

18. Comments:

Text Response I do not think that TCE should be jeopardised in any way - a full utas unit does this, in my opinion

I think there have been instances of inappropriate offerings of both models - but there are clear instances where some mode of delivery are highly appropriate. I think that there is a third model which sits somewhere between the two extremes which may suit a large proportion of offerings.


81

See previous comments. This isn't because of the pedagogy (the TCE extension students did perfectly well); it's because of the issues colleges have with the TCE.

19. How important to students is the current practice of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement?

# Answer


7 70%

2 Important

2 20%

3 Not important

1 10%

Total 10 100%

20. Comments:

Text Response UTAS College students are still young and facing one of the most important challenges of their lives, graduation from school and entry to university. This means that if the pressure is too great, despite their best intentions, they will withdraw in favour of passing their TCE. This is reasonable and sensible and in the interests of UTAS. Generally when they enrol, most students are committed to do their best and try hard. It is when the exam pressures of other TCE subject exams appear that they tend to withdraw.

Huh? I was told that after census dates tudnets cannot withdraw without penalty??? So what is the real situation??????

It could be argued that we are not serving the future discipline of these students well but not encouraging them to take control of their learning. But of course they are underage....

I do hope that you don't aggregate the answers to this one in such a way as to suggest that the top answer is commendatory of the current practice. I've answered 'very important', because very many students take advantage of that policy, and I feel it encourages them to regard uni as something less than a serious commitment. Is this setup - in which we spend resources through the semester on a cohort of a certain size, only to have them all vanish come the exam, desirable?

Students are uncertain about the program. What is the point of penalising them if they find that it is not what they want to do - unnecessary administrivia


82


# Answer


0 0%

2 Associate Degree

2 22%

3 Degree

5 56%


2 22%

Total 9 100%

22. Comments:

Text Response If UCP units are correctly mapped against UTAS units and their is equivalence, such that they enter UTAS at 2nd Year standard, then they have both the content knowledge and skills to continue. The knowledge and skills should be recognised.

all of the above

Certificate at least or a Diploma with further study

Why make these forced alternatives? My answer is that it should count to all of these. I have no problem at all with our recognising that a degree student has genuinely done one or two units before attending uni.

It's the same unit as the degree unit. Why wouldn't it count towards the degree?

23. Please indicate subject area or areas in which you have been involved?

# Answer

Response %


83

1 Aboriginal Studies

0 0%

2 Asian Languages

2 18%


1 9%


1 9%


2 18%


0 0%

7 Philosophy

1 9%


2 18%

9 Asian Studies

1 9%


1 9%

24. Please indicate approximately how many college/school students you have been involved with as part of the University College Program.

# Answer

Response % 1 1 - 5

0 0%

2 6 - 10

1 9%

3 11- 50

6 55%

4 51- 100

1 9%

5 More than 100

3 27%

6 Not sure

0 0%


84

Total 11 100%






26. Comments:

Text Response I have a detailed understanding but I do not know if this is at all in accord with specific UCP aims and objectives, policies, procedures or assessment rules. Ive based my program on what I know of UTAS rules policies and regulations. I understand the student selection process because I determined it for my program

For my particular unit, very well, where university assessment procedures are used. For units cotaught with year 12, assessment and selection seem very vague.

Really good collaboration between College teachers and Conservatoium staff in the development of robust assessment procedures. These give teachers a good deal of influence in matters of assessment, course development and support material development. Meetings and conversations around standards, performace and assessment rubrics have stregthened teaching and learning processes and professional relationships betwen the school/college sector and the Conservatorium

Are these questions about the UCP as a whole, or the pilot within it that I was involved in? I've answered on the assumption that you are after the former.


85

27. How important

















86


6 Colloquiums 1 6 0 1 8 2.13





29. Comments:

Text Response Due to admin problems, I have had to set up facebook as the way to communicate with my studnets because MyLo was not available early on. Actually, I could have arrabnged myLo if I had known that there was a 'back door' to mylo enrolment.

There would be a lot more don't knows if I were responding to the UCP's arrangements this year. This is based on our pilot last year, and discussions with other academic staff involved in pilots then.

The students that I deal with want to be 'known' as UTAS students despite still studying at the Academy. The student card, access to facilities (e.g. surprisingly the gym), access to the University network etc seem to be matters of importance that contribute to their desire to complete the program.

30. Do you find participating in the University College Program:

# Answer

Response % 1 Rewarding

7 70%

2 Not rewarding

1 10%

3 Neutral

2 20%

Total 10 100%


87

31. Comments:

Text Response It has been rewarding because I have made it rewarding. In fact, I have found trying to run the program extrememly exhausting and frustrating. The college teachers and students are great - uni admin has not supported me to achieve my aims

Required to participate in spite of reservations about the quality and organisation of the Program. A desire for constructive and critical feedback (one of the main roles of University) has been expressed but not really welcomed. Not the best way of increasing student numbers.

The building of professional links and trust between the Con and participating teachers is a feature of work. The benefits to students is also a feature - their belief in the value of such credit is high and seems to indicate that many who had not perceived themselves as on a tertiary pathway feel more disposed to consider one.

This is one of many places where I've found the categories you've chosen too limiting. I'm certainly not neutral about it, but there were very satisfying aspects to it (most clearly, forming a link to college students), and very unsatisfying aspects of it (uni arrangements for enrolment, examination and MyLO support); college staff admin competence; fairness issues (and resulting politics) between different schools and colleges.

Rewarding yet frustrating. The program is clearly valuable because the students achieve something that is important to them, and the University achieves because my Faculty gets students that it would otherwise not (in my view at least). Yet ... there seem to be mixed messages coming from the University about whether the program is valued or not - this needs to be sorted.

32. As a deliverer in the University College Program do you find the program:

# Answer

Response % 1 Of benefit to participating students

9 90%

2 Not of benefit to participating students

0 0%

3 Neutral

1 10%

Total 10 100%


88

33. Comments:

Text Response I assume so but as the unit is being run for the first time and we havent finished I cant say with certainty

See last comment. To me, the main value of the UCP would be in showcasing potential uni attendance to students who would normally not consider it (i.e non-high achievers). Almost inevitably, in the face of difficulties with the student cohort and delivery, our pilot and others mutated into a program for high achievers. However worthy that was, it misses the key goal of transforming Tasmania's educational demographics.

The program enhances the students'Academy studies and clearly prepares them for Univesity study - they know what to expect, they know some of the faces, they know some of the support services - it provides a 'soft' landing into a fairly bewildering educational organisation.

34. Which format works best for the delivery of University College Program units?

# Answer

Response % 1 Full year units

3 30%

2 2 semester based units

1 10%


1 10%

4 Don't know

5 50%

Total 10 100%

35. Comments:

Text Response Silly question - depends on the subject being taught! Languages would be best as a one year uynit. Philsoophy should have only been a one semester unit in sem 1 so that it didnt clash with TCE exams


89

My only comment here is that second semester at colleges runs headlong into final exams.

In my area, because of the skill and knowledge development that is needed through the pre-tertiary subject, the second semester is the best semester to conduct the program.

36. Are exams a suitable assessment method for University College Program units?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

0 0%

2 No

2 20%

3 Only when they are part of a regular UTAS unit

6 60%

4 Don't know

2 20%

Total 10 100%


Variance 0.44


Total Responses 10


90

37. Comments:

Text Response Again, silly question. what sort of exams? Seen exams/ Take home exams? I am against formal exams in teh exam period with the other UTAS students, if that answers the question

Because of the 'withdrawal without penalty' policy adopted, we had too few do the exam to tell.

No, because the students undertake an examination in their pre-tertiary subject anyway. Alternative assessment methods are appropriate.


# Answer


6 67%


2 22%


1 11%

Total 9 100%

39. Comments:

Text Response This will achieve greater relevance if we have students who are at least undertaking such a program.

great idea

Unless it is marketed and facilitated with summer and winter school units. Students doing combined degrees find it hard enough already.

I really don't know. But I do note that the ignorance of most college students about how uni works is very high. If you want to set up such an idea, a great deal of


91

spadework (not just an info session) is needed to let students understand what a degree, diploma, etc is (and, indeed, what a unit, major, and (uni-based) school or faculty is).


# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

8 80%

2 No

2 20%

Total 10 100%


# Answer

Response % 1 Useful

4 44%

2 Neutral

4 44%

3 Not useful

1 11%

Total 9 100%


Text Response 1. Establishes the linkage between colleges and UTAS schools that should support the maintenance of learning areas into the future. 2. Breaks down the barriers between the pre-tertiary and tertiary sector that is based on outmoded intellectual prejudices and works against the quality of teaching and learning generally. 3. Makes UTAS more a part of the general learning community. It covers feeder areas in a more effective way than advertising.


92

It encourages interaction/liason between UTAS and colleges thus removing the idea that UTAS is an inaccessible area for Tasmanian students. It encourages the brighter college students to extend themselves in a UTAS unit before attending fulltime UTAS and to realise they are capable of achieving at UTAS level It provides continuity in a language subject where there may be a 12 month gap because of TCE restrictions.

increase enrolments in my first year unit give college students a taster support college teachers

Extending the students,especially as in my subject they are often in very small groups at the college and have different levels of exposure to the language. The UCP caters for all those. Students can count a first year subject towards their degree. The HECS-free status and the selective nature of the UCP (Academic merrit through minumum TCE standard) lends the programme a sholarsip feel and rewards motivated and hard-working students.

Teachers connect with university, keep up with contemporary issues and approaches. University lecturers connect with teachers and understand where their students are coming from. A dialogue. Extending gifted and talented students, and giving them a different learning opportunity.

1. Marketing of uni units

Alignment of school/college staff and Con staff with a focus on student engagement and learning. Opening up students horizons to include university study as a realistic future option. Giving credit for what students can do whether they are in a tertiary or college setting.

1. potential outreach to students who wouldn't otherwise consider uni. 2. staff links between colleges and uni. 3. options for high achievers.

1. Student retention to UTAS 2. Students achieving a unit towards their degree (saves time and money) 3. Better relationships with Academy and independent schools

flexibility rewarding


Text Response 1. Insufficient resources to fulfil a function that has become increasingly more complex. If it is to be done well, then it should be better resourced in people and money so that the best outcomes can be facilitated. 2. The long lead time to develop confidence amongst college teachers and the possibility of that confidence to be rapidly eroded. 3. Limitation to the "optional" learning areas. Maths, English, History etc., if included would provide a powerful support.

The lack of support from the UTAS department concerned (the inability to see that it may increase student numbers to the department.. thus a certain degree of cynicism) College students may be seeing the program as a very easy means of obtaining a full first year UTAS subject with very little work/effort involved on their part.


93

poor coordination poor administration lack of leadership

There are time restraints and it is difficult to find dates which suit every student able and willing to undertake the programme. If the university wants to continue this programme, then a pattern needs to be established when the workshops are held and what is required so that students and colleges can plan ahead.

Students not emotionally mature enough for both content and self directed learning. Students not cognitively mature enough for both content and self directed learning.

1. Giving students credit for 25% of major 2. Organisation of UCP 3. Its ability to affect enrolments 4. Cost to Schools (Utas)

The inability of some University staff to conceive of robust, quality teaching and learning commensurate of University standards within years 11 and 12 and thus a dminishing of the vlaue and status of such programs. The inability of committing as much time (for a UTAS perspective) as one can in a range of disparate institutions to service their needs as well as we would like. The opportunity to offer sustained professional learning support to college teachers in developing suitable course materials from the Unit outlines.

1. Various uni systems (exams, distance, etc) just not ready for this, or unwilling to be involved, or too inflexible to handle school needs. 2. Colleges not very reliable partners - poor day to day management and admin, willing to promise a lot to start the program but unwilling to follow through, etc. (Some further issues here related to the current Tas Tomorrow college reforms and their political fallout.) 3. The impression currently given (and I do not *at all* think this is due to the UCP staff; this seems to me to instead reflect the framework that UTas as a whole has brought to the issue) that the whole thing is a cynical attempt to profit-take - to unitise current college activities, to get federal funding for extra bums on seats, and so on. I came across regular expressions of college cynicism about the Uni's intentions (among teaching staff).

1. Mixed messages from the University itself - do we want it or not? 2. Inconsistent administrative processes 3. Lack of support from some sections of the University

time resource


# Answer


4 40%

2 Continue as is

0 0%


2 20%


94


3 30%


1 10%

Total 10 100%

45. Comments:

Text Response The educational world is changing and universities cannot afford to maintain programs that do not attract students. If we wish to maintain capabilities at UTAS, then we need to ensure that our own home population values our university as equivalent to any other in the nation. The way for them to see this best is by engagement with an institution that they see as dynamic and relevant to their future needs. It beats advertising!

Large classes for workshops need to be reduced in size... ie run two concurrent ones of say 25 students max. Students and teachers need to be thoroughly informed of the compulsory nature of the workshops at the beginning of the semester... some uncomfortably difficult situations have arisen becuase of communication lapses... perhaps because there have been two many people involved in the relaying of information to the schools????

needs to be QA Unit coordinators need to be able to refer to documents outlineing what they should be thinking about, what stage of prep they should be at and so on unit coords need central support Student admin needs a complete overhaul as does the thinking around contacting colleges tehre needs to be adatabase of college teachers and units taught - this should be rpoactively done by UTAS not reactivley. How are uni academics expected to know what's going on out there? Surely this is the job at the central level better resourcing useful emails and meetings opportunities for people involved in UCP to meet others and share info The services of developers to help us conceptualise what we are trying to do with our units and how they need to be re-written to take into account the needs of college students Info about college - If you didnt go to college here the whole system is a complete mystery! I still dont know hopw many colleges there even are here!

Set some standards and frame works. Make sure students are getting a valuable outcome for their learning entitlement.

Well, see previous comments. But in summary: 1. Target the average college student, not high achievers (and prevent 'high-end creep' in the face of obstacles) 2. Completely rethink the marketing involved in the fee waiver (and replace it with a fee reduction), and scrap the withdrawal policy. 3. Aim for a long term relationship - and credible signs of long term commitment - that involves enculturation rather more than just enrolling school students - invite schools to have their formals, debates, or other suitable events on our campuses, or give them all partial access to our libraries, or have a program of academic visits to classrooms to do spot teaching that isn't unitised, or invite school councillors to come on campus to meet their past students and follow up on how they've done. 4. Be careful not to wander into the TCE politics of the colleges. You know, in Tasmania we have a near perfect environment to build organic school-uni links. There is exactly one uni here, so there's no demarcation fight


95

to be had. And the college system means that students are collected into a handful of institutions, making our interface with the whole student cohort extremely simple. Something like the UCP is therefore an absolutely natural move for the uni, if it's done right.

This program is a win for the students, a win for the Academy and independent schools, and a win for the University and its Faculties. In a time where there are potentially declining numbers of full-fee paying international students why wouldn't the Faculties embrace this program - yet they don't (very frustrating).

46. Do you have any other suggestions or comments on how UTAS and the senior secondary sector may further the aims of UTAS College as outlined in the preamble to this survey (or as available on the UTAS College website www.uta.edu.au/uta-college/what-is-utas-college)?

Text Response To encourage the "language" students to continue on to UTAS, maybe more stress should be made on the availability of Diploma of Language courses for those intending to follow another degree, Law/Science etc and of the High achievers programs etc.. so that the students dont consider the College program as a one-off involvement.

I must say that this survey was anything but quick to fill out. Not sure who it was targetted at either - I think that unit coords, college techers, college adminsitrators and stduents all have different needs and opinions and that the surveys need to be designed with this in mind I jhave lots of ideas on what we could do but I have already spent a long time answering the questions to this point and must get on with my other work. writing answers to a survey is not always the best way to get feedback

This is a visionary program that aims for increased retention and participation rates, demystifying UTAS as an institution and stegthening relationships with the education profession. It is REAL for young people, supported by educators and valued by students!


96

Appendix 6: Online Survey Questions and Responses – UTAS Heads of School

Initial Report UTAS HOS






Responses Mean

1 The University College Program is valued schools/colleges. 2 1 2 0 0 5 2.00

2 The University College Program is valued by participating students. 2 1 2 0 0 5 2.00

3 The University College Program is valued by my school/faculty. 2 1 0 2 0 5 2.40

4 The University College Program is widely known and understood by your school/faculty staff.

1 0 1 3 0 5 3.20

5 The University College Program is widely known and understood schools/colleges.

1 0 3 1 0 5 2.80

6 The University College Program is widely known and understood by school/college students.

1 0 3 1 0 5 2.80


97

Statistic The University College Program is valued schools/colleges.

The University College Program is valued by participating students.

The University College Program is valued by my school/faculty.

The University College Program is widely known and understood by your school/faculty staff.

The University College Program is widely known and understood schools/colleges.

The University College Program is widely known and understood by school/college students.

Mean 2.00 2.00 2.40 3.20 2.80 2.80

Variance 1.00 1.00 2.30 1.70 1.20 1.20

Standard Deviation

1.00 1.00 1.52 1.30 1.10 1.10

Total Responses

5 5 5 5 5 5

2. Comments:

Text Response





Responses Mean


2 Student selection process. 1 1 1 1 0 4 2.50

3 Unit selection process. 1 1 2 0 0 4 2.25


98

4 Unit development process. 1 2 0 1 0 4 2.25

5 Unit organisation. 1 3 0 0 0 4 1.75

6 Unit delivery. 2 2 0 0 0 4 1.50

7 Unit moderation & assessment. 1 2 0 1 0 4 2.25


9 Feedback and communication with UTAS College . 1 1 1 1 0 4 2.50

10 Support for UTAS staff teaching in the UCP. 0 1 2 1 0 4 3.00

11 Resources 1 0 1 2 0 4 3.00

12 Support offered to students. 1 0 1 2 0 4 3.00

13 Opportunities to collaborate with senor secondary staff about the program as a whole.

1 0 2 1 0 4 2.75

14 Opportunities to collaborate with educators in the senior secondary sector.

1 0 2 1 0 4 2.75


Student selection process.

Unit selection process.

Unit development process.

Unit organisation.

Unit delivery.

Unit moderation & assessment.


Feedback and communication with UTAS College .

Support for UTAS staff teaching in the UCP.

Resources

Support offered to students.

Opportunities to collaborate with senor secondary staff about the program as a whole.

Opportunities to collaborate with educators in the senior secondary sector.


99

Mean 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.25 1.75 1.50 2.25 1.75 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.75

Variance

2.25 1.67 0.92 1.58 0.25 0.33 1.58 0.25 1.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 1.58 1.58

Standard Deviation

1.50 1.29 0.96 1.26 0.50 0.58 1.26 0.50 1.29 0.82 1.41 1.41 1.26 1.26

Total Responses

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4. Comments:

Text Response The CoM looks after nearly all aspects of its UTAS college program in-house. We are very satisfied with all aspects.



# Answer

Response % 1 1

0 0%

2 2

2 50%


100

3 3

0 0%

4 4

2 50%


0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 1.33


Total Responses 4

6. Comments:

Text Response Running into a Diploma course or concurrent Diploma - as many as they can fit in alongside their studies and other activities. If they are good enough and standard is met, there should be no restriction at all.

No more than a total of 25%

I think it is vital that students are limited to one unit per semester - ie 25% at level 100 in total. More will impact on the integrity of their UTAS bachelors degree.

Not sure what 'one-semester' unit means, I've assumed a 12.5 point subject. I think some students can cope with up to 50 points worth of university study prior to formal and full time university life, however care is needed so as not to overwhelm, waste learning opportunity/entitlement; young people develop at different rates and not all can achieve full benefit of learning unless mature...


101



# Answer

Response % 1 1

0 0%

2 2

4 100%

3 3

0 0%

4 4

0 0%


0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.00


Total Responses 4


102

8. Comments:

Text Response no more than 2

2 x 12.5



# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 Responses 1 Senior secondary college/school recommendation 1 2 1 0 0 4





Total 4 4 4 4 4

Statistic Senior secondary college/school recommendation


Previous academic performance



Mean 2.00 4.50 2.25 2.50 3.75

Variance 0.67 0.33 0.92 1.67 3.58


103

Standard Deviation

0.82 0.58 0.96 1.29 1.89



Text Response Enrolment in a TCE subject that has been assessed for it equivalency in content and outcome to a specific UTAS level 100 unit.











104












Unit evaluation.

Program evaluation.

Mean 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.25 2.75

Variance 0.92 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.25 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.25 0.25

Standard Deviation

0.96 0.58 1.00 0.58 0.50 1.00 1.15 0.00 0.50 0.50

Total Responses

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

12. Comments:

Text Response UTAS should be responsible for enrolments and assessments in UTAS units. Schools and UTAS should be jointly responsible for establishing the program and communication about the program. Without clarification about existing roles, responsibility for communication with parents needs to stay with the schools, as they have both the information and experience.

I have answered this on the basis of the units being formal UTAS units developed for and offered with its bachelor degree program. Units developed exclusively for


105

school/college program should be administered in every respect as a joint effort.






Responses Mean



2 1 0 1 0 4 2.00


2 1 0 1 0 4 2.00


2 2 0 0 0 4 1.50


2 1 0 1 0 4 2.00


2 0 1 1 0 4 2.25



2 0 0 1 1 4 2.75


106


0 1 1 2 0 4 3.25


0 2 0 1 1 4 3.25













Mean 2.25 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.25 2.00 2.75 3.25 3.25 2.25

Variance 2.25 2.00 2.00 0.33 2.00 2.25 2.00 4.25 0.92 2.25 1.58

Standard Deviation

1.50 1.41 1.41 0.58 1.41 1.50 1.41 2.06 0.96 1.50 1.26

Total Responses

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

14. Comments:

Text Response While it is appropriate to acknowledge the similar content and level of study between a very few TCE and level 100 UTAS subjects, I believe other aspects of the program


107

could be counterproductive if they lessen the sense of challenge and progression involved with university study. This could result in high achieving students choosing to study elsewhere. While the program is successfully encouraging greater communication between UTAS and colleges, I would like to see this communication result in a more coherent progression from Yr 12 to first year university, rather than less differentiation.






Responses Mean




3 1 0 0 0 4 1.25


1 2 1 0 0 4 2.00



7 Status 1 0 2 1 0 4 2.75


9 Passion for subject. 2 0 2 0 0 4 2.00


108

10 Marketing & promotion of the unit. 0 1 2 1 0 4 3.00

11 Parental encouragement. 1 2 1 0 0 4 2.00

12 Teacher encouragement/ recommendation 2 2 0 0 0 4 1.50

13 Feedback from previous students. 0 2 2 0 0 4 2.50




An opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills in a particular area of study.

An opportunity to challenge and extend themselves.

Boosting their confidence to undertake university level study.

Status


Passion for subject.

Marketing & promotion of the unit.

Parental encouragement.

Teacher encouragement/ recommendation

Feedback from previous students.

Mean 1.25 2.50 1.25 2.00 1.75 2.00 2.75 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 2.50

Variance 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.67 0.92 1.33 1.58 0.67 1.33 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.33

Standard Deviation

0.50 1.00 0.50 0.82 0.96 1.15 1.26 0.82 1.15 0.82 0.82 0.58 0.58

Total Responses

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4


109

16. Comments:

Text Response These assessments are based on a small sample of student feedback and personal networks among college students.


17. Which type of unit do you believe works best in the University College Program model?

# Answer

Response % 1 Unit mapped against existing TCE subjects with extension opportunities provided by UTAS.

1 25%

2 Full university unit offered in addition to (or replacing a) TCE subjects.

0 0%


2 50%

4 Don't know.

1 25%

Total 4 100%


Variance 1.58


Total Responses 4


110

18. Comments:

Text Response


19. How important to students is the current practice of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement?

# Answer


3 75%

2 Important

1 25%

3 Not important

0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.25


Total Responses 4

20. Comments:


111

Text Response But this raises equity issues among other level 100 students.



# Answer


3 75%

2 Associate Degree

1 25%

3 Degree

0 0%


0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.25


Total Responses 4


112

22. Comments:

Text Response Depends on the unit and intention of the delivery. All three wasn't an option above, but i would choose it if it were.

Associate Degree or Diploma would be appropriate

Diploma or associate degree, with possibility of applying for credit towards a bachelor degree







Statistic UCP aims and objectives Student selection process Program rules and regulations Assessment processes Mean 1.80 3.80 4.00 2.00

Variance 0.70 8.70 8.00 0.50

Standard Deviation 0.84 2.95 2.83 0.71


113

Total Responses 5 5 5 5

24. Comments:

Text Response


25. How important












114



On-campus workshops

Step-Up program






Mean 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.75 1.50 2.50 1.25 1.75 2.00 1.00

Variance 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00

Standard Deviation

0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.58 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00

Total Responses

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4







6 Colloquiums 0 2 0 1 3 2.67


115







On-campus workshops

Step-Up program






Mean 3.00 2.67 1.67 3.33 2.67 2.67 3.00 2.33 2.00 3.00

Variance 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 1.00

Standard Deviation

1.00 0.58 0.58 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.00 0.58 0.00 1.00

Total Responses

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

27. Comments:

Text Response



116

28. Do you find participating in the University College Program:

# Answer

Response % 1 Of overall benefit for my School

2 50%

2 Of limited benefit for my School

1 25%

3 Neutral

1 25%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.92


Total Responses 4

29. Comments:

Text Response



117

30. As a deliverer in the University College Program do you find the program:

# Answer

Response % 1 Of benefit to participating students

2 50%

2 Not of benefit to participating students

1 25%

3 Neutral

1 25%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.92


Total Responses 4

31. Comments:

Text Response



118

32. Which format works best for the delivery of University College Program units?

# Answer

Response % 1 Full year units

2 50%

2 2 semester based units

1 25%


1 25%

4 Don't know

0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.92


Total Responses 4

33. Comments:

Text Response



119

34. Are exams a suitable assessment method for University College Program units?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

2 67%

2 No

0 0%

3 Only when they are part of a regular UTAS unit

1 33%

4 Don't know

0 0%

Total 3 100%


Variance 1.33


Total Responses 3

35. Comments:

Text Response Depends what you mean by "exams". The word and concept are both misleading in relation to Performing Arts. Performance assessments are part and parcel of what we do, but to call them exams doesn't make sense.


120



# Answer


3 75%


1 25%


0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 0.25


Total Responses 4

37. Comments:

Text Response Yes, if UCP subjects are contained to the Diploma.


121



Text Response Increasing the standard of performing arts in Tas Creating significant pathways for students into UTAS Connecting UTAS with the community in a very real and meaningful ways.

Encourages students towards tertiary education Reduces cost of degree for participating students Encourages links between UTAS and Schools

Acknowledging overlap of content where that genuinely occurs, and allowing progression at first year university level. Increasing communication between schools/colleges and UTAS about subject content and assessment. Providing opportunities for students to extend study in a specific subject.

Encouraging students to consider university a seriously viable option; the creative arts develops useful career skills and knowledge; great way to engage with colleague teachers at college/academy



Text Response Enrolments not completed until over half way through the semester means students have no access to MYLO or LIbrary and this gives students a very poor impression of UTAS Units often very poorly organised or at too low a level which puts good students off attending UTAS Unfair that other first-year students pay HECS and can have a failure recorded on academic transcript

Lessens sense of challenge and progression involved with UTAS study. Poor communication between various parties about who is responsible for communicating with students and parents. While increasing numbers in first year units, no evidence of flow through in enrolments.


122

confusion of product range; quality assurance; unrealistic expectations for what university level study might be like - if student has not done a formal UTAS subject; immature students not getting the most from their learning entitlement



# Answer


1 25%

2 Continue as is

0 0%


1 25%


2 50%


0 0%

Total 4 100%


Variance 2.00


Total Responses 4


123

41. Comments:

Text Response Units must be equivalent to other Level 100 units (inlcuding assessment) Enrolments must be completed by census date Failures to be recorded Same HECS fees as other students

Offer only where content is genuinely the same. Provide QA mechanisms to ensure university 'add ons' are rigorous and do not diminish UTAS's reputation. Limit each student to 25% in total of UCP subjects within a Bachelors degree, or consider moving and containing within an associate degree or diploma. Resolve communication difficulties, in terms of university-parents.

Needs greater clarity and consistency together with better marketing within the university and to colleges/academy and Polytech


42. Do you have any other suggestions or comments on how UTAS and the senior secondary sector may further the aims of UTAS College as outlined in the preamble to this survey (or as available on the UTAS College website www.uta.edu.au/uta-college/what-is-utas-college)?

Text Response



124


125

Appendix 7: Survey Summary Report Schools

Combined College and Senior Secondary School Staff & Principals

Value of the University College Program: [N=40]

Awareness of the University College Program: [N=40]

Satisfaction with elements of the University College Program: [N=39]

The University College Program is valued by our school/college

The University College Program is valued by our students

The University College Program is valued by our parents

The University College Program is valued by UTAS

The University College Program is widely known and understood by staff at our school/college

The University College Program is widely known and understood by students at our school/college

The University College Program is widely known and understood by parents at our school/college



Enrolment and administration




Relationship with TCE

Opportunities for you to collaborate with UTAS colleagues in your discipline




Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

Very Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied



126

How many one semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary student should be able to undertake per year in this program (percentage in favour of each)? [N=37]

How many one-semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary students should be able to count towards their TVE results in this program (percentage in favour of each)? [N=32]

Ranking of preferred student selection methods: [N=36]

0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

%

0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

%

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Teacher/College recommendation

Previous academic Performance



Least Most Preferred Preferred


127

Who do you think should be responsible for the following tasks? [N=32]

Importance of key program elements: [N=35]

0 20 40 60 80 100

Deciding which students are eligible for the program

Deciding which and how many units a student would do

Providing pastoral care to students in the program

Determining which unties would be offered as part of the program

Curriculum content of units offered

Facilitating communication with students about the program

Facilitating communication with parents about the program

Scheduling and running information sessions about the program

Unit evaluation

Program evaluation

%

% Joint

% UTAS

% School/College

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Challenging and extending high achieving students

Expanding students' knowledge and skills in a particular area of study

Boosting their confidence in undertaking university level study

Providing students with credit towards a university award program

Providing HECS scholarship

Encouraging students to go to university

Introducing students to university level study and life

Providing UTAS-School/college liaison opportunity

Opportunities to improve students' TCE performance

Encouraging students to go to UTAS

Encouraging students to pursue a particular area of study at university

Very Very Unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Important


128

Key student motivation factors: [N=35]

How well are the following program elements understood by staff and principals? [N=40]

How important to students is the current practise of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement? [N=36]

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0









Improving TCE performance



Status

Marketing and promotion of the unit

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

UCP aims and objectives

Students selection process

Unit pre-requisites

Program rules and regulations

Assessment processes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Very Important

Important

Not Important

%


Don’t know Very Anything Not well Neutral Well Well


129

Success in a UCP unit should count towards: [N=36]

What is the most appropriate way to support and recognise the contribution of college/school teacher working with the UCP? [N=34]

It has been suggested that the UCP has the potential to encourage students to undertake a Degree plus a Diploma to ‘add value’ to their university studies. Do you think the idea has merit? [N=34]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Diploma

Associate degree

Degree

Other

%

0 25 50 75 100

Certificate

Letter of Appreciation

Opportunity to undertake further study or research

Thank you event or ceremony

Other

%

0 20 40 60 80 100

The idea has merit and is likely to attract students

The idea has merit but is unlikely to attract students

The idea has little merit

%


130

How important are the following elements to the UCP? [N=37]

How adequate is the current level of provision in the following elements of the UCP? [N=32]

Your recommendation for the future of the University College Program would be: [N=34]

0.0 1.0 2.0

On-campus workshops

Interaction with UTAS lectures

Schools visits by lecturers


Colloquiums



Access to UTAS library

Step-up program

Other

0.0 1.0 2.0



Colloquiums

On-campus workshops

Interaction with UTAS lectures

Step-up program


Other



0 20 40 60 80 100

Continue and expandContinue with minor modifications

Coninue as isContinue with major modificationsDo not continue with this program

%

Not Important Important

Insufficient Adequate


131

Appendix 8: Survey Summary Report UTAS

Combined UTAS Staff and Heads of School

University College Program Value:

University College Program Awareness:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

The University College Program is valued by school/college

The University College Program is valued by participating students

The University College Program is valued by my school faculty

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

The University College Program is widely known and understood by your school/faculty

The University College Program is widely known and understood by schools/colleges

The University College Program is widely known and understood by school/college students




132

Satisfaction levels:

How many one semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary student should be able to undertake per year in this program (percentage in favour of each)?

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Unit evaluation process

Unit organisation

Unit delivery

Unit selection process

Student selection process

Unit moderation and assessment

Unit development process

Feedback and communication with UTAS College

Opportunities to meet the collaboration with college staff about the program as a whole

Opportunities to collaborate with college/school teachers/educators about your discipline

Support offered to students

Support for UTAS staff teaching in the UCP

Resources


0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

%



133

How many one-semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary students should be able to count towards their TVE results in this program (percentage in favour of each)?

Ranking of preferred student selection methods:

Who do you think should be responsible for the following tasks?

0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

%

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Teacher recommendation



Student/parent

Other

0 20 40 60 80 100









Unit evaluation

Program evaluation

% Joint

% UTAS

% School/College



134

Importance of key program elements:

Key student motivation factors:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0












0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0












Status





135

How well are the following program elements understood by staff and principals?

How important to students is the current practise of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement?

Success in a UCP unit should count towards:

It has been suggested that the UCP has the potential to encourage students to undertake a Degree plus a Diploma to ‘add value’ to their university studies. Do you think the idea has merit?

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0





0 20 40 60 80 100

Very Important

Important

Not Important

0 20 40 60 80 100

Diploma

Associate degree

Degree

Other

0 20 40 60 80 100






136

Exams are a suitable assessment methods of UCP units?

Which format works best for the delivery of UCP units?

As a deliverer of the UCP do you find the program:

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Only when they are part of a regular UTAS unit

Don't know

0 20 40 60 80 100

Full year units

2 semester-based units

Both work equally well

Don't know

0 20 40 60 80 100

Of benefit to participating students

Not of benefit to participating students

Neutral


137

How important are the following elements to the UCP?

How adequate is the current level of provision in the following elements of the UCP?

Your recommendation for the future of the University College Program would be:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0


On-campus workshops






Step-up program

Other

Colloquiums

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

On-campus workshops




Other


Step-up program

Colloquiums



0 20 40 60 80 100

Continue and expand

Continue with minor modifications

Coninue as is

Continue with major modifications

Do not continue with this program




138

Appendix 9: Survey Summary Report Combined

Combined UTAS Staff and Heads of School

University College Program Value:

University College Program Awareness:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

The University College Program is valued by school/college

The University College Program is valued by participating students

The University College Program is valued by my school faculty

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

The University College Program is widely known and understood by your school/faculty

The University College Program is widely known and understood by schools/colleges

The University College Program is widely known and understood by school/college students




139

Satisfaction levels:

How many one semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary student should be able to undertake per year in this program (percentage in favour of each)?

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Unit evaluation process

Unit organisation

Unit delivery

Unit selection process

Student selection process

Unit moderation and assessment

Unit development process

Feedback and communication with UTAS College

Opportunities to meet the collaboration with college staff about the program as a whole

Opportunities to collaborate with college/school teachers/educators about your discipline

Support offered to students

Support for UTAS staff teaching in the UCP

Resources


0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

%



140

How many one-semester units do you believe a pre-tertiary students should be able to count towards their TVE results in this program (percentage in favour of each)?

Ranking of preferred student selection methods:

Who do you think should be responsible for the following tasks?

0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

%

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Teacher recommendation



Student/parent

Other

0 20 40 60 80 100









Unit evaluation

Program evaluation

% Joint

% UTAS

% School/College



141

Importance of key program elements:

Key student motivation factors:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0












0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0












Status





142

How well are the following program elements understood by staff and principals?

How important to students is the current practise of allowing withdrawal without academic penalty at any point or when students do not meet a minimum standard of achievement?

Success in a UCP unit should count towards:

It has been suggested that the UCP has the potential to encourage students to undertake a Degree plus a Diploma to ‘add value’ to their university studies. Do you think the idea has merit?

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0





0 20 40 60 80 100

Very Important

Important

Not Important

0 20 40 60 80 100

Diploma

Associate degree

Degree

Other

0 20 40 60 80 100






143

Exams are a suitable assessment methods of UCP units?

Which format works best for the delivery of UCP units?

As a deliverer of the UCP do you find the program:

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Only when they are part of a regular UTAS unit

Don't know

0 20 40 60 80 100

Full year units

2 semester-based units

Both work equally well

Don't know

0 20 40 60 80 100

Of benefit to participating students

Not of benefit to participating students

Neutral


144

How important are the following elements to the UCP?

How adequate is the current level of provision in the following elements of the UCP?

Your recommendation for the future of the University College Program would be:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0


On-campus workshops






Step-up program

Other

Colloquiums

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

On-campus workshops




Other


Step-up program

Colloquiums



0 20 40 60 80 100

Continue and expand

Continue with minor modifications

Coninue as is

Continue with major modifications

Do not continue with this program




145

Appendix 10: 2008 Annual Report

UTAS College Co-delivery Pilot Report to Council

INTRODUCTION The UTAS College Co-delivery Pilot Program is one of the main initiatives being undertaken through the UTAS College Project which aims to raise higher education aspirations and develop socially inclusive pathways to study at university. The Co-delivery Pilot commenced in winter semester 2008. Two models of delivery have been identified: first year units mapped against TCE subject with an additional component provided by UTAS to meet unit requirements; and a complete UTAS unit offered contributing to a student's meeting the participation and achievement requirement for the award of the TCE. All units in the pilot offered are existing accredited units with approval for co-delivery granted by the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. The pilot program will run until 2010 during which time a full evaluation will be undertaken. PILOT PROGRAM 2008 OVERVIEW Unit of Study Initial Enrolment Partners FCP110 Foundation Practical Study

143 Elizabeth College Rosny College Newstead College Launceston College

FSA111 – Core Studies in Art and Design

31 Hobart College Elizabeth College

FSE 120 Introduction to Digital Imaging

1 Hobart College Elizabeth College

HMC 101 and HMC102 - Chinese

20 Elizabeth College Hobart College

HMN 101and102; - Indonesian

10 Elizabeth College Hobart College

HMJ 101 and HMJ 102 - Japanese

128 Claremont College Elizabeth College Gilford Young College Hobart College Marist Regional College Rosny College Scotch Oakburn College St Mary’s College St Michael’s Collegiate School St Patrick’s College The Don College The Friends’ School

HEF 101 and HEF 102 -French

140 Elizabeth College Guilford Young College Hobart College Launceston Church Grammar School Launceston College Marist Regional College Newstead College


146

Rosny College Scotch Oakburn College St Michael’s Collegiate School The Don College The Fahan School The Hutchins School

10 units 473 17 Colleges STUDENT OUTCOMES 2008 Unit of Study F PP CR DN HD WW Total FCP110 Foundation Practical Study

0 73 38 15 17 0 143


1 1 8 7 1 13 31

FSE 120 Introduction to Digital Imaging

1 0 0 0 0 0 1

HMC 101 Chinese 0 2 3 0 3 3 11 HMC102 Chinese 0 2 3 0 3 1 9 HMN 101 Indonesian

0 1 1 1 1 1 5

HMN 102; - Indonesian 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 HMJ 101 Japanese 0 9 9 14 19 13 64 HMJ 102 - Japanese 0 5 10 12 12 25 64 HEF 101 French 0 1 10 9 15 35 70 HEF 102 -French 0 0 4 4 15 47 70 2 95 87 63 87 139 473 One hundred and eleven of the students enrolled in UTAS College units last year are enrolled in UTAS in 2009 ISSUES IDENTIFIED 2008 Whilst it was acknowledged that there were some very good student results achieved in the 2008 program and the program worked well where professional relationships had already been established or were established during the program with UTAS staff, initial evaluation identified issues to be addressed in 2009. Student maturity and progress: Given the age and maturity of the student cohort

undertaking pre-tertiary study in Years 11 and/or 12 (aged 16 years and over), and evidence of non completion, the need to address workload, timing and student support was identified.

Communication: Given student staff and parent feedback regarding contact points at the university, understanding of university systems, student non use of their UTAS email, difficulty of online access, communication of results, communication with colleges, the need to improve communication was identified.

Recognition of the role of College teachers and the need to further develop the partnership with the senior secondary colleges and schools was identified.

University systems and processes: Within the university, the need to further develop enrolment processes for the UTAS College students and focus on quality assurance was identified :


147

ACTION Identified for 2009 Development of the Quality Assurance Plan for UTAS College Co-delivery. Honing enrolment processes including College Principals’ and Dean’s approvals;

data capture and tracking students The development of an on-campus orientation program/on campus experience The Vice Chancellor’s recognition of involved university and college staff Working with the Academy and Colleges to address appropriate formal

recognition of College staff, student selection, student support, optimum numbers of units to be undertaken and evaluation.

Further development of underpinning research which will address longitudinal outcomes, including specifically those for high achieving students, and involve development of a research team with co-delivery lecturers and potentially teachers.

PILOT PROGRAM 2009 OVERVIEW Unit of Study Total enrolment Partners High Achievers Program (HAP)

Mainstream HAP* (22 units) Business Information Systems, Economics for Business Calculus and Applications 1B, Calculus and Applications 1A Ancient Civilisations 1A: Introduction to Ancient History Japanese Core Skills 2B, Japanese Core Skills 2A Japanese Core Skills 2A German 2A German 2B, German 2A Chinese 2 Oral & Aural Skills B, Chinese 2 Oral & Aural Skills A Latin 1A, Latin 1B French Language 2B, French Language 2A History 1B: Making the Modern World, History 1A: Making Modern Europe English 1A and 1B

46 Academy Hellyer Campus Elizabeth College Guilford Young College Marist College St Mary’s College St Michael’s Collegiate School The Friends School The Hutchins School

HPA 103, 105 Critical and Creative Thinking, The Big Question (Philosophy)

47 Claremont College Guilford Young College

Music program for gifted students (6 units) Prelude Overture

14 2

Academy Hobart Campus Rosny College St Patrick’s College

Other UTAS Units Music Development Program (7 units)

14 Academy Hobart Campus Academy Newstead Campus Claremont College Guilford Young College


148

Rosny College St Michael’s Collegiate School The Friends School

Summer Rock Program (3 units)

4 Claremont College

HAB 102,103 Contemporary Indigenous Australia Historical Indigenous Australia (Aboriginal Studies)

4 Claremont College

FCP110 Foundation Practical Study

280 Academy Newstead Campus Academy Don Campus Academy Hobart Campus Elizabeth College Rosny College


22 Academy Hobart Campus Elizabeth College St Michael’s Collegiate School St Mary’s College Rosny College

Hobart College Elizabeth College

Co delivery Units

HMC 101 and HMC102 - Chinese

91(71 UTAS unit ) Academy Hobart Campus Elizabeth College Scotch Oakburn College

HMN 101and102; - Indonesian

1 Academy Hobart Campus

HMJ 101 and HMJ 102 - Japanese

105 Claremont College Elizabeth College Gilford Young College Academy Hobart College Campus Marist Regional College Rosny College Scotch Oakburn College St Mary’s College St Michael’s Collegiate School St Patrick’s College The Don College The Friends’ School

HEF 101 and HEF 102 -French

110 Academy Don Campus Academy Hobart Campus Academy Newstead Campus Elizabeth College Guilford Young College Launceston Church Grammar School Launceston College Marist Regional College Rosny College Scotch Oakburn College St Michael’s Collegiate School The Fahan School The Friends School


149

The Hutchins School HEG 101 and HEG 102 German

27 Academy Hobart Campus Academy Newstead Campus St Michael’s Collegiate School Launceston College

Visual and Performing Arts Background to Contemporary Art and Design Studio Glass Studies Introduction to Two-Dimensional Studies Introduction to Three-Dimensional Studies Contemporary Painting Practices Advanced Black & White Photography Sculpture: Fine Art Metal Casting Theatre Skills 2 Technical Theatre Contemporary Dance: Composition and Performance Performing Tasmania ** (13 units)

518 Marist College Academy Hellyer Campus Academy Don Campus Launceston Church Grammar Launceston College Academy Newstead Campus Scotch Oakburn College

Units: 30 HAP 21 Co-delivered 14 Other 65 units

1531 (826 students)

19 Colleges

Participation by College 2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

Claremon

t Coll

ege

St Mich

aels C

ollegia

te

Marist

College

The H

utchins

Schoo

l

Elizabe

th Coll

ege

Friends

Sch

ool

Hellyer C

ollege

Don Coll

ege

Guilfor

d Young C

olleg

e

Fahan S

choo

l

St Mary

's Coll

ege

Hobart C

olleg

e

Laun

cesto

n Churc

h Gram

mar

Laun

cesto

n Colle

ge

Newstead C

olleg

e

Rosny C

olleg

e

Scotch

Oak

burn C

ollege

St Patr

icks C

olleg

e

St Bren

dan S

haw C

ollege

Num

ber o

f stu

dent

s


150

PROGRESS 2009 The Quality Assurance Plan has been developed and approved by the University Teaching and Learning Committee and Academic Senate. The leadership role of the Associate Deans Teaching and Learning has been established. Enrolment and communication processes have been significantly improved and a team is working on further developing UTAS systems. Co-delivered Business Units will be offered for the first time in second semester 2009. Other offerings are being developed. The Vice Chancellor has hosted two events, one in Hobart and one in Launceston, for senior secondary teachers and principals involved in the first stage of the pilot in 2008. Two Symposia, one in Hobart and one in Launceston, have been held for senior secondary principals and staff. Professor Gary O’Donovan, PVC Students and Education, introduced the objectives of the Symposia: To provide a forum for the wider discussion of university preparation and pathways

including raising aspirations of school students to attend university As part of this, to provide a framework for discussing and further developing the ‘UTAS

College Program’ To Provide for consultation with senior secondary teaching staff to address:

o Their role in the UTAS College Programme; o Recognition through honorary appointment to UTAS or alternatives; o Induction/staff development and support required o Access to facilities and resources

To provide a forum for the discussion of curriculum issues including: o Assessment of units where extension of TCE is used (including

appropriateness of additional exams); o Criterion referenced assessment (College assessment and UTAS

assessment) To collaboratively establish research and evaluation questions for the UTAS College Pilot

Program and university preparation and pathways To establish a methodology for ongoing contact and collaboration between the University

and the senior secondary sector The Symposia have progressed the partnership with the sector, the quality assurance agenda and the profile of the collaboration. Participants responded enthusiastically and engaged in lively and productive discussions during the days. As an outcome, a number of recommendations have been proposed for further action including some specifically targeted at the continued development of the UTAS College Co-delivery Program.

Associate Professor Anne Langworthy July 2009


151

Appendix 11: Quality Assurance Plan

UTAS College Quality Assurance

Introduction

A three year pilot programme of co-delivery of UTAS Units with senior secondary colleges is currently entering its second year. The UTAS College Co-Delivery Programmes offered in 2009 are listed in Appendix A. Not all of these programmes involve co-delivery although all will involve Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance. The emphasis in this report and plan as required by Senate meeting of March 6, 2009 is on UTAS College co-delivery where programmes are linked to comparable programmes offered in Colleges.

Critical points for Quality Assurance include:

Equitable access/duty of care “All students must have equitable access academic and other support regardless of the campus at which they are located” (University Council 21 May, 2004); Enrolment and admissions ensuring eligibility and information provision; Quality of teaching and learning governed by course and unit approvals; staff appointment, support and staff development; assessment and evaluation; and Communication and collaboration with secondary college partners.

Existing QA processes relevant to co-delivered units:

Quality Assurance Area Relevant Policy/Procedures Responsibility

Enrolment

Admission and student progress (Rule 3)

Director, Student and Academic Services.

Dean or Head of School

Unit approval:

Minor amendment (change in assessment practice/criteria; change in contact hours less than + or – 20%; change in delivery teaching pattern; change in syllabus; change in unit code or title )

Significant amendment

New Course Proposals (Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Manual)

Guidelines on administration and Management of Units

Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee

Associate Deans Teaching and Learning

University Teaching and Learning committee and Academic Senate

Student support/services Teaching and Learning Quality Issues Related to the Multi Campus Nature of the University of Tasmania

Code of Conduct for Teaching and Learning

Draft First Year Student Experience Policy

Head of School

PVC Students and Education

Teaching staff Honorary, Visiting Clinical and Adjunct Appointments

Head of School


152

Code of Conduct for Teaching and learning

Sessional Teaching at the University of Tasmania

Assessment Academic Assessment (Rule 2) (Assessment Policy under review)

Head of School

Evaluation Course reviews (Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Manual)

SETL (policy under review)

Head of School

Issues:

Consistency of decision making across UTAS Schools Academic support for College teachers Application of SETL to co-delivered units TCE equivalence in assessment Risk management (Risk Management Policy)

Quality Assurance Area

University Requirement Issue

Enrolment

Applicants are eligible for admission to an undergraduate course if the applicant satisfies the general entrance requirements of the University; and any course specific requirements approved by Academic Senate unless the responsible dean decides otherwise.

A person must not undertake any course or unit without being enrolled.

Enrolments must be made to the Director Student and Academic Services in writing on the prescribed form or in a manner prescribed by the Director Student and Academic Services

All enrolments require the written approval of the relevant dean (and the Head of School responsible for teaching the unit if the Faculty does not teach it)

University administrative systems are designed to ensure that prospective students have appropriate access to accurate information about University courses and support services; - the selection and enrolment of applicants in

Students in secondary colleges do not meet general admission eligibility but are admitted under the “other” category technically covered by the discretion of the responsible dean.

Accurate information for UTAS enrolled college students

There may be a need for a selection process for college students.

Appropriate information for students needs to be publicly available

Given that parent access to student information is inherent in College systems and that Colleges are educational partners with UTAS in regard to UTAS College enrolled students, the issue


153

courses is based on merit and follows approved and advertised criteria and processes; and that students records are appropriately managed including maintenance of student confidentiality/privacy

privacy/confidentiality of information for UTAS enrolled College students needs to addressed

QA Plan 2009 Common information to be developed across all UTAS College offering available in hard copy and on the UTAS College website

Student Centre staff will accompany academic staff on initial visits to Colleges. These staff members will outline rights and responsibilities and facilitate enrolment procedures

Enrolment forms will include College Principal and Parent/Guardian permission signatures and student permission to disclose results to their College.

Formal sign-off of UTAS enrolments as the “other” category by the Dean Other issues to be resolved with student admissions and Associate Deans Teaching

and Learning and TQA where relevant: o The level of award programme into which students enter; o Which units can count towards TCE o How many units can count towards TCE o What is an appropriate load for students to attempt and maximum numbers

of units, considering recommendations from FT&LC o Mutually exclusive programmes or units o Is there a limit on HECS waivers o Guaranteed withdrawal without academic penalty and the consumption of

SLE o Release of results given the differing timelines for programmes

A interim 2009 report to be developed for the UT&LC Committee and Senate

Unit approval:

Minor amendment (change in assessment practice/criteria; change in contact hours less than + or – 20%; change in delivery teaching pattern; change in syllabus; change in unit code or title )

Minor amendments to units are approved by the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. Significant amendments must also be approved by the University Teaching and Learning Committee and Academic Senate.

Units delivered in the pilot programme can be seen to require minor amendments to the unit delivery (given the credit given to the TCE course work at the discretion of the Dean – extrapolated from Rule 3- Admission and Student Progress, credit granted to enrolled students on the basis of studies completed) If it is deemed that the unit offering to College students is sufficiently different from that offered to/experienced by other UTAS enrolled students in the same unit, it may be necessary for a distinct unit to be accredited which will involve standard teaching and learning quality assurance processes for new units culminating in approval by Academic Senate Given the scale and scope of the co-delivery model proposed, it may be prudent to present the programme to Academic Senate for approval


154

QA Plan 2009 Process for determining the equivalence of units offered through the UTAS College Programme and those offered to UTAS online and on campus first year students to be established with the Associate Deans Teaching and Learning including but not limited to an analysis of unit outlines and assessment. Appropriate format of documentation to be determined as part of the process. Process for establishment of new units /unit codes to be developed if significant difference in student outcomes is identified A interim 2009 report to be developed for the UT&LC Committee and Senate

Student support/services The University provides a wide range of support services to assist students to access and participate in courses, to enhance their learning experiences and opportunities for academic success, and to encourage their career development. The University has a general duty to ensure that students are advised of and have reasonable access to the services published as part of the University's offerings. Services provided include programmes:

- for all students aimed at encouraging self-reliance and life-long learning skills; - targeting the needs of specific student groups, such as transition support programmes for first- year students including orientation and mentoring, and support services for disadvantaged students including disability advisory services; - focusing on health and well-being.

- Other services offered to students include careers, counselling, religious support and student finances.

http://www.utas.edu.au/compliance/admin_support_students

In the same way that the university seeks to provide equitable student services for online students, the university will need to be clear about the way it provides services for UTAS enrolled students in secondary colleges.

QA Plan 2009 Appropriate level of students services offered to UTAS College students identified by PVC Students and Engagement in consultation with UTAS Student Services Staff in collaboration with College staff

UTAS College student orientation and transition support programme to be piloted with at least one College in 2009.

Evaluation of the programme to be used to develop recommendations for second phase piloting in 2010


Teaching staff Sessional staff are defined as “university teaching staff who are employed on a casual basis or engaged in an honorary capacity” (Sessional Teaching at the University of Tasmania.)

Honorary, Clinical or Adjunct titles may be conferred upon persons who contributing to the Teaching and or research programmes or to community and outreach programmes of the

The appointment process needs to be developed. Models for this development can be found in the processes developed for: Clinical appointments and/or employing sessional staff (School

specific) A Specific induction process and UTAS staff contact(s) for sessional/honorary


155

University with the university but does not receive remuneration.

Honorary Associates (Lecturers or Fellows) are appointed by the Dean of an appropriate Faculty on the recommendation of the relevant Head of School for a period up to three years.

Appointments must adhere to strict criteria. An abbreviated CV should accompany the request to appoint.

Honorary title holders have the same privileges as full time academic staff (excluding worker’s compensation)

The university requires that all sessional staff should have :

A clear understanding of their duties and responsibilities as outlined in their letter of honorary appointment;

A point of contact when they require assistance or information;

An induction process; Staff development; and Access to facilities and resources.

associate teacher support are required The appointment of College Honorary Associates will help to fulfil the requirement for students to also have access to staff apart from scheduled lectures and tutorials although arrangements for contact with Faculty staff will still need to be made. Appointment and induction processes are required. A process to manage and maintain relationships is required.

QA Plan 2009 Point of contact for College staff to be advertised in all information, hard copy and online The position of Associate Professor UTAS College will be responsible for establishing a process to manage and maintain relationships Initial development of College staff duties from the University perspective and recommended induction process established with Associate Deans Teaching and Learning Proposal for honorary appointment will be developed (including identifying/distinguishing paid work) Consultation with College staff to address: Their role in the UTAS College Programme; Recognition through honorary appointment or alternative; Induction/Staff development required Access to facilities and resources


Assessment A student enrolled in a unit is to be assessed in accordance with rules made by Academic Senate. Assessors may use any or all of the following methods of assessment:

Formal exams written or oral tests assessment of student performance

including performance in a laboratory or tutorial class and in written assignment and

any other form of assessment

The code of conduct for teaching and learning indicates that assessment requirements will be consistent with published unit outlines and therefore linked with course and unit objectives as well as with realistic workload expectations for students.

The amount of credit given for TCE linked subjects and assessment for


156

approved by the relevant teaching and learning committee and Academic Senate

Assessors are the Head of School and one or more people appointed by the Head of School.

Units usually have 2-3 assessment tasks

Students are subject to the same rules for pass/failure special consideration special assessment arrangements, advice as to progress and review as all other enrolled students

(assessment policy and procedures under review given the move to Criterion Referenced Assessment)

extension work should be consistent with unit objectives and outlines. It is appropriate that this is clearly documented and communicated.

The University states that at all times information will be confidential - release outside university can only be made with student consent - this needs to be considered in view of the collaborative nature of the partnerships with Colleges.

UTAS Schools should ensure that sessional staff who mark work are provided with marking schemes and understand criteria and standards for assessment

UTAS Schools will need to ensure that there is moderation of grades when marking undertaken by more than one person.

QA Plan 2009 Process for determining the equivalence of units offered through the UTAS College Programme and those offered to UTAS online and on campus first year students to be established with the Associate Deans Teaching and Learning including but not limited to an analysis of unit outlines and assessment. Appropriate format of documentation to be determined as part of the process. The model for moderation of grades developed in 2008 to be documented and tested in 2009 by individual UTAS Schools Consultation with College staff to address:

Assessment of units where extension of TCE is used (including appropriateness of additional exams);

Criterion referenced assessment (College assessment and UTAS assessment) Withdrawal without Academic Penalty


Evaluation The university provides for course reviews and SETL (Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning) at least once every three times the unit is offered if continuously offered or once every two offering if not consecutive.

Pilot programmes usually require evaluation for example the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee accepted interim quality assurance standards for online units in mid 2001 then subjected those standards to test and review and consultative process in second semester

Arrangement for SETL administration to students in Colleges is required

Programme evaluation is required


157

before the Current Standards for Online Delivery were accepted by the University.

QA Plan 2009 Required amendments to the standard SETL format will be discussed with University and College teaching staff, The form of SETL to be piloted with UTAS College co delivery unit , which may involve a different or revised instrument, will be approved by the Associate Deans Teaching and Learning.

The Associate Deans Learning and Teaching will consider development of documented QA standards for co-delivery using the Standards for Online Delivery as a model

Overall Program evaluation and key research questions will be developed collaboratively with UTAS and College Teaching Staff

Risk Management

The University Risk Management Policy requires that six major areas of risk be considered:

Duty of Care - owed to all students in respect of their personal safety and learning activities both on and off campus. Owed to all employees (Workcover not applicable to honorary appointments)

Service Delivery – the risk associated with below standard or non delivery of committed service: Managing Resources - risk associated with provision of information, financial services Managing Relationship – risk associated with managing communication with all levels of government, community,

key stakeholders and internal : EDGE objectives – the risk of not achieving the university’s reputation people and position goals as described in

EDGE2 -; and Compliance –to statutory requirements

QA Risk Management 2009

Seek advice from the Governance and Legal Department regarding risk management and the need to register risk separately.

Development of the second stage of the three year pilot program and the overarching program evaluation will consider the six major areas of risk

In order to build and manage the relationship with Colleges and college staff:

Facilitator positions will be identified within UTAS; A report on the progress of the pilot will be made to College Principals; Recognition events will be hosted by the VC for involved College and UTAS staff at Hobart and Launceston; and A symposium or forum will be held for involved and interested staff in Hobart and in Launceston where QA issues will

be systematically addressed as indicated above


158

Appendix 12: University College Program Progress Report 2009

University College Program Progress Report 2009 Introduction

The University College Pilot Program is a joint venture between UTAS, the Tasmanian Academy and senior secondary schools/colleges which allows capable and motivated students to undertake university study either in conjunction with or alongside their studies towards the Tasmanian Certificate of Education (TCE) or the International Baccalaureate (IB).

When the university unit is taken in conjunction with TCE, students are enrolled in a TCE pre tertiary level 3 subject the curriculum for which correlates directly with the UTAS first year unit. To satisfy the requirements of the correlated UTAS unit the student undertakes extension work which is provided by and assessed by the University. When the university unit is taken alongside the TCE the students study a complete UTAS unit either through the High Achievers program or with a school or campus based facilitated class. These units are best suited to high achieving students. In both cases the senior secondary school assesses the student as capable of completing work at first year university level and must along with the parent or guardian approve the UTAS application for enrolment.

The program has grown and developed in 2009 with highlights including: • Over double the number of students and over double the number of units offered; • improved quality processes in both teaching and learning and administration (including

timely reporting to Colleges); • a reduction in the withdrawal rate from 29% to 17%; • an 83% pass rate with 59% of students receiving a credit or above • systematic resolution of many academic issues with our senior secondary colleagues; and • high levels of participation and cross sectoral collaboration evidenced by engagement in the

two Symposia held in June 2009, the establishment planning and review committee with involved school/college representation in the School of Visual and Performing Arts and the process for teacher accreditation and collaborative assessment being developed by the Conservatorium, for example.

The national participation agenda has thrown the spotlight on pathways to university and preparation programs which have been central to the UTAS College initiative at the university

Partnership with our colleagues in the senior secondary sector is a critical success factor of the program and it is hoped that the collaboration and relationships established will lead to us all addressing student retention and participation challenges in Tasmania in a far more effective and cohesive way.

2009 Program Overview

Summary

Table 1: Program Participation Summary Total Number of Students 588

Total Number of Unit Enrolments 872


159

No. Units Completed 725

Number Participating Schools/Colleges 18

Number of Units Offered 26

Enrolment by Participating Senior Secondary School

Figure1: Enrolment by School

Table 2: Enrolment by School

A full listing of college/school unit enrolments is attached as Appendix A

020406080

100120140160

Don

Col

lege

Eliz

abet

h Co

llege

Faha

n

Frie

nds

Gui

lford

You

ng C

olle

ge

Hel

lyer

Col

lege

Hob

art C

olle

ge

Laun

cest

on C

olle

ge

Laun

cest

on C

hurc

h …

Mar

ist C

olle

ge

New

stea

d Co

llege

Rosn

y Co

llege

Scot

ch O

akbu

rn C

olle

ge

St M

ary’

s

St M

icha

els

Colle

giat

e

St P

atri

ck’s

Col

lege

Clar

emon

t Col

lege

Hut

chin

s

Enrolments per school UCP 2009


160

Unit Results

Table 3: Award Summary

Table 4: Results for Each Unit

Award Number & % Achieved High Distinction 61 7% Distinction 206 24% Credit 247 28% Pass 208 24% Fail 3 0 Withdrawn/withheld 147 17% 872 100%


161

High Achievers Program

The structure of the High Achievers Program has not changed since the program was introduced by the Vice Chancellor in 2004. The program has provided an opportunity for a small number of high achievers in year 12 to enrol in a range of first year units providing they can schedule attendance at a university campus.

Please note that the results for Prelude and Overture, Conservatorium Programs for High Achieving Students, have been included in the overall University College Program as the 8 students in the program have undertaken the same units as students in the University College Program. There are 6 units identified in the UCP Prelude Program and one in Overture .Results are included in the results for FCE141 Small Ensemble 1A; FCE142Small Ensemble 1B;FCE241 Small Ensemble 2A;FCG110 Foundation Musicianship; FCM111 Keyboard 1A; and FCT110 Tonal Theory (see previous page)

2009 Summary

Table 5: HAP Program Participation Summary 2009 Total Number of Students: 21

Total Number of Unit Enrolments: 41

No. Units Completed: 41

Number Participating Schools/Colleges: 9

Number of Units Offered: 15

Unit Results

Table 6: HAP Award Summary 2009

Award Number Achieved % High Distinction 27 64% Distinction 11 26% Credit 3 7% Pass 0 0% Fail 0 0% Withdrawn/withheld 0 0%


162

Participating Schools/Colleges

Table 7: HAP Enrolments by Individual School/ College Schools No. Units

Studied Units

Elizabeth College 6 Ancient Civilisations 1A: Introduction to Ancient History Ancient Civilisations 1B: Intro to Classical Literature

Japanese Core Skills 2A Japanese Core Skills 2B

Fahan 2 French Language 2A French Language 2B

Friends 6 French Language 2A French Language 2B German 2A

German 2B

Guilford Young 2 Japanese Core Skills 2A Japanese Core Skills 2B

Hellyer 1 History 1A: Making Modern Europe

Hutchins 2 Calculus and Applications 1A Calculus and Applications 1B

Marist College 2 Business Information Systems Economics for Business

St Marys 4 Japanese Core Skills 2A Japanese Core Skills 2B

St Michaels Collegiate 16 Calculus and Applications 1A Calculus and Applications 1B Latin 1A

Latin 1B

Figure 2: Number of Units Studied by School


163

Unit Results Table 8: HAP individual units and awards 2009

Unit HD DN CR PP NN WT

TOTAL

Ancient Civilisations 1A: Introduction to Ancient History

1 1

Ancient Civilisations 1B: Intro to Classical Literature 1 1

Business Information Systems 1 1

Calculus and Applications 1A 2 2

Calculus and Applications 1B 2 2

Economics for Business 1 1

French Language 2A 2 1 3

French Language 2B 3 3

German 2A 1 ` 1

German 2B 1 1

History 1A: Making Modern Europe 1 1

Japanese Core Skills 2A 2 2 1 5

Japanese Core Skills 2B 2 2 1 5

Latin 1A 5 1 1 7

Latin 1B 6 1 7

The University College Program 2010

In 2010, the University College Program will include 26 university units of study, across three Faculties offered to pre-tertiary students in collaboration with the senior secondary sector. This year is the final year of the pilot and there will be a focus on evaluating the program. Complementing this evaluation will be a review of the High Achievers Program (HAP).

Associate Professor Anne Langworthy

March 12, 2010


164

Appendix A: College Unit Enrolments

School Units No.Enrolled Claremont College Small Ensemble 1A 1 Small Ensemble 1B 2 Small Ensemble 2A 1 Tonal Theory 1 Contemporary Indigenous Australia 1 Critical & Creative Thinking 4 Don College Foundation Practical Studies 39 Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 10 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 9 Theatre Skills 6 Technical Theatre 5 Beginners Japanese 1A 4 Beginners Japanese 1B 4 Elizabeth College Foundation Practical Studies 35 Advanced Practical Studies 12 Core Studies in Art & Design 1B 4 French 1A 6 French 1B 5 Chinese 1A 7 Chinese 1B 7 Beginners Japanese 1A 3 Beginners Japanese 1B 3 Fahan French 1A 1 French 1B 1 Friends Tonal Theory 1 French 1A 2 French 1B 2 Guilford Young College Small Ensemble 1A 1 Foundation Musicianship 1 French 1A 1 French 1B 1 Beginners Japanese 1A 1 Beginners Japanese 1B 1 Critical & Creative Thinking 24


165

Hellyer College Accounting 10 Small Ensemble 1A 1 Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 5 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 5 Theatre Skills 9 Technical Theatre 9 Hobart College Small Ensemble 1A 1 Foundation Musicianship 1 Tonal Theory 1 Core Studies in Art & Design 1B 4 French 1A 1 French 1B 1 German 1A 5 German 1B 5 Chinese 1A 1 Chinese 1B 2 Beginners Japanese 1A 4 Beginners Japanese 1B 4 Hutchins Keyboard 1A 1 French 1A 3 French 1B 3 Launceston College Foundation Practical Studies Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies Theatre Skills Technical Theatre Core Studies in Art & Design 1B Ensemble A French 1A French 1B German 1A German 1B Beginners Japanese 1A Beginners Japanese 1B L’ton Church Grammar Small Ensemble 1A 3 Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 3 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 3 Ensemble A 1 French 1A 1 French 1B 1


166

Marist College Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 2 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 2 Theatre Skills 2 Technical Theatre 2 French 1A 4 French 1B 4 Beginners Japanese 1A 6 Beginners Japanese 1B 6 Newstead College Small Ensemble 1A 2 Foundation Practical Studies 24 Advanced Practical Studies 12 Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 12 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 12 Theatre Skills 13 Technical Theatre 12 Ensemble A 2 French 1A 2 French 1B 2 German 1A 1 German 1B 1 Beginners Japanese 1A 1 Beginners Japanese 1B 1 Rosny College Small Ensemble 1A 2 Small Ensemble 1B 3 Foundation Practical Studies 24 Advanced Practical Studies 6 Tonal Theory 1 Core Studies in Art & Design 1B 4 French 1A 1 French 1B 2 Beginners Japanese 1A 7 Beginners Japanese 1B 7 Scotch Oakburn College Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 3 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 3 Theatre Skills 3 Technical Theatre 3 French 1A 2 French 1B 1 Chinese 1A 19 Chinese 1B 14 Beginners Japanese 1A 3 Beginners Japanese 1B 3


167

St Mary’s Core Studies in Art & Design 1B 3 Beginners Japanese 1A 7 Beginners Japanese 1B 5 St Michaels Collegiate Small Ensemble 1A 1 Core Studies in Art & Design 1B 2 French 1A 3 French 1B 3 German 1A 5 German 1B 5 St Patrick’s College Small Ensemble 1A 1 Keyboard 1A 1 Introduction to 2 Dimensional Studies 1 Introduction to 3 Dimensional Studies 1 Theatre Skills 4 Technical Theatre 4 Beginners Japanese 1A 6 Beginners Japanese 1B 6


168

Appendix 13: College Language Program Survey

1. Which Language(s)did you undertake in 2009

Which Language(s)did you undertake in 2009 Chinese

French

German

Japanese

2. How many years have you studied this language (you may tick multiple boxes)

Yr 3/4 Yr 5/6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12

Chinese

How many years

have you studied

this language (you may

tick multiple boxes)

Chinese Yr 3/4

Yr 5/6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12

French French Yr 3/4


German German Yr 3/4


Japanese Japanese Yr 3/4


* 3. Participation in the University College Program

Strongly Disagree Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly

Agree Informed me about language learning at

Participation in the

Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly

Agree


169


Agree UTAS University

College Program

Informed me about

language learning at

UTAS Strongly Disagree

Extended my overall language knowledge and confidence

Extended my overall language

knowledge and

confidence Strongly Disagree


Agree

Helped me get a head start on university study

Helped me get a

head start on university

study Strongly Disagree


Agree

Improved my exam confidence

Improved my exam

confidence Strongly Disagree


Agree

Meshed well with my TCE language studies

Meshed well with my

TCE language studies Strongly Disagree


Agree

Is something I would recommend to fellow students

Is something I

would recommend

to fellow students Strongly


Agree


170


Agree Disagree

Made me feel a part of UTAS

Made me feel a part of

UTAS Strongly Disagree


Agree

Other (please specify)

* 4. The University College Program


Agree

Motivated me to continue languages at university

The University College Program

Motivated me to continue

languages at university Strongly Disagree


Agree

Interested me in new language learning opportunities

Interested me in new language learning

opportunities Strongly Disagree


Agree


* 5. The workshops

Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly

Agree Improved some of my basic skills

The workshops Improved

Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly

Agree


171


Agree some of my basic skills

Strongly Disagree

Complemented the assignment tasks

Complemented the assignment tasks Strongly

Disagree


Agree

Taught me new strategies and techniques


Strongly Disagree


Agree

Assisted my motivation

Assisted my motivation

Strongly Disagree


Agree

Should consist of more days with less hours in each


Strongly Disagree


Agree

Were more enjoyable and useful than I expected

Were more enjoyable and useful than I

expected Strongly Disagree


Agree

Were worth the additional time and effort

Were worth the

additional time and effort Strongly Disagree


Agree

Revealed new language opportunities


Strongly Disagree


Agree


172


* 6. Workshop participation enhanced my


Agree

Listening

Workshop participation

enhanced my Listening Strongly Disagree

Disagree No

Opinion Agree Strongly Agree

Speaking Speaking

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No


Grammar knowledge

Grammar knowledge

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No


Written comprehension

Written comprehension

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No


Skills integration

Skills integration Strongly Disagree

Disagree No



* 7. The lecturer(s)


Agree

Were accessible and responsive

The lecturer(s)

Were accessible

and responsive

Strongly


Agree


173


Agree Disagree

Treated us with respect

Treated us with respect Strongly Disagree


Agree

Were interested and supportive

Were interested

and supportive Strongly Disagree


Agree

Made us feel part of the University

Made us feel part of

the University Strongly Disagree


Agree

Made the course a positive learning experience

Made the course a positive learning

experience Strongly Disagree


Agree

Prepared tasks that were consistent and made sense to me

Prepared tasks that

were consistent and made

sense to me Strongly Disagree


Agree


* 8. I utilised the following university resources

Not at all Occasionally Frequently

Library I utilised the following university

Occasionally Frequently


174

Not at all Occasionally Frequently resources Library Not

at all

MyLO online learning program

MyLO online learning program Not

at all Occasionally Frequently

9. Please add any additional comments about the University College Program

Please add any additional comments about the University College Program:


175

Appendix 14: College Language Program Survey Analysis

UTAS College Languages Program

2009 Cohort Survey Responses

Introduction

The students in the 2009 UTAS College languages program were sent an online survey using Survey Monkey to gauge student satisfaction and to identify areas for improvement. The survey link was sent out to students on October 23, 2009 a reminder sent on November 23 with the survey closing on November 30, 2009

Whilst there is a clear preference emerging in many of the survey questions, it is interesting that “No Opinion” responses are as high as 15% to 20% in some questions.

Student Profile

A total of forty students responded to the survey. The 23 Japanese students represent 62% of those who completed the course and 57.5% of the survey respondents (Table 1).

Table 1. Which Language(s)did you undertake in 2009

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Chinese 0.0% 0

French 35.0% 14

German 10.0% 4

Japanese 57.5% 23

The most notable trend in French and Japanese learning is the consistency through from Years 7 to 11 (Table 2). Year 12 participation may be lower either due to fewer year 12 students sitting for their Language pre-tertiary subject in the second year


176

Table 2.

How many years have you studied this language (you may tick multiple boxes)

Answer Options

Yr 3/4

Yr 5/6

Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Response Count

Chinese 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

French 6 6 10 8 8 9 10 5 15

German 1 1 3 3 2 4 4 0 4

Japanese 10 9 16 15 16 16 18 8 23

In some cases, schools recommend more difficult language exams when students are more mature. In the case of Japanese, the Year 12 group contains at least three students who were resitting the subject in an attempt to achieve a better score. The withdrawal of three students from at least one school in 2009 suggests that this also will be the case in 2010. Figure 1 below reveals clearly the consistency of the Years 7-11 progression in the languages traditionally taught in Tasmanian Schools. It also highlights the potential gap at Year 12 level before students can progress their language at University. Furthermore, the responses illustrate that those undertaking the UCP opportunity are more likely to be long term language students.

Figure 1 Years Studying the Language


177

Participation Responses

Table 3. Participation in the University College Program

Answer Options Strongly Disagree

Disagree No opinion

Agree Strongly Agree

Informed me about language learning at UTAS

1 3 8 25 3

Extended my overall language knowledge and confidence

0 4 6 26 4

Helped me get a head start on university study

0 5 6 25 4

Improved my exam confidence

1 8 8 21 2

Meshed well with my TCE language studies

1 1 8 23 7

Is something I would recommend to fellow students

0 1 5 21 13

Made me feel a part of UTAS 0 9 15 15 1


Responses to the first three questions in Table 3 are positive at 70%, 75%, and 72%, with actual negatives only 10%, 10%, and 12% respectively. On this basis the program can be said to have achieved the aims of:

• informing students of UTAS options, • extending student knowledge, and • making students feel they have a head start in university studies. • Seventy-five percent of students indicated that the UCP meshed well with the TCE

Fewer students (57%) felt that the program improved exam confidence. This result is not surprising since the program does not aim to prepare students for the TCE exam and did not use an exam for UTAS assessment. The undecided element in these responses may well reflect students not fully making the connection between the benefits of UTAS learning and TCE examination syllabus demands. Later comments about course content suggest that students wanted more immediately useful skills and knowledge rather than appreciating the benefits of any additional learning.


178

The highest level of negative response was associated with the question regarding feeling part of UTAS (64% disagree or no opinion). This may reflect the mainly distance mode of delivery and the fact that on-campus workshops are held on the weekend when there is less overall students activity

Most notably 85% of participants felt favourably about the course and would recommend it to others, with only one respondent feeling negative. This is particularly important when related to the previous question in that most of the participants still will be within their college in 2010. The implication of this was evident at the Don Campus of the Tasmania Academy during the 2009 enrolment tour when one student informed others that her friend had participated in the first cohort and strongly recommended the program to the other new candidates. From a marketing point of view, it may be possible to draw on these positive feelings to convey the real workload and expectations to the 2010 cohort. A diagrammatic review of this question illustrates clearly the positives, and that strong negative response to any aspect of the program is almost completely absent.

Figure 2 Student Perceptions of UCP Languages

Seventy percent of the students agreed that the program encouraged them to continue language (Table 4)


179

Table 4. The University College Program


Disagree No

opinion Agree

Strongly Agree

Motivated me to continue languages at university

0 3 8 27 1

Interested me in new language learning opportunities

1 3 13 22 1

Most students agreed that the UCP motivated them to continue languages at university with 57% agreeing that the program interested them in new language learning opportunities. The high level of undecided students may reflect a lack of understanding of what the term “new language opportunities” means or uncertainty that the program relates to languages other than the language they are learning

Figure 3 Student Perceptions of their Motivation and Interest

This result is supported by the new language opportunities workshops response (Table 5) where only 40% agreed that they had been exposed to new opportunities whilst 50% were undecided..


180

Table 5. The workshops


Disagree No

Opinion Agree

Strongly Agree

Improved some of my basic skills

1 4 4 25 6

Complemented the assignment tasks

0 2 11 24 3


0 5 9 20 6

Assisted my motivation 1 6 11 19 3


1 8 7 11 13

Were more enjoyable and useful than I expected

2 3 9 25 1

Were worth the additional time and effort

1 3 9 22 5


1 3 20 16 0

For languages faculty, it may be important to adopt a more strategic UTAS perspective and be willing to sacrifice some workshop time for these aims. Concurrent workshops on the same day would make this a far more economical proposition.

Satisfaction with the workshops is within the 65% range with a higher 77% response for the improvement of basic skills. In general no opinion responses exceed negatives. The largest split is between positive and negative responses to workshop scheduling. 60% would prefer more workshops of shorter duration with 33% feeling strongly. However, 20% did not want this option. Whilst there may be merit in more frequent workshops of lesser duration, avoiding fatigue and increasing contact (and thus reinforcing UTAS identity), the cost of weekend class time and travel needs to be borne in mind. Similarly, weekend workshops may impact adversely on part time work arrangements, perhaps the source of the negative responses.


181

Figure 4: Student Perceptions of Workshop Elements

There were two comments on this section:

• [The workshop] started a bit early for people coming from Burnie! • Perhaps there should be three workshops with only two compulsory. This makes it less

stressful for participants and also means that they can still participate in the university program while still missing a workshop if they have family commitments or are sick on one of the days of the workshops. The workshops were helpful but they went very quickly. It was also disruptive having people leaving and returning from their oral practice. I found that when I came back from my oral I found it difficult to start working again because I didn't know what was going on and I had missed some of the things that the lecturer had said.

Table 6. Workshop participation enhanced my


Disagree No

Opinion Agree

Strongly Agree

Listening 1 5 5 27 2

Speaking 0 8 3 26 3

Grammar knowledge 0 4 5 24 6


182

Written comprehension 1 5 10 21 3

Skills integration 0 4 11 21 1

Other (please specify): speaking feedback would be benificial!

Table 6 above indicates the level of student satisfaction with workshop skills enhancement

Responses to Teaching

Table 7. The lecturer(s)


Disagree No

Opinion Agree

Strongly Agree

Were accessible and responsive

0 0 5 25 10

Treated us with respect

0 0 2 25 13

Were interested and supportive

0 0 8 25 7

Made us feel part of the University

0 4 13 18 5

Made the course a positive learning experience

0 0 6 27 7

Prepared tasks that were consistent and made sense to me

0 3 3 23 10


tasks were consistent in that i knew what to expect but some didn't make sense at all and did nothnig excpt confuse me.

Student perceptions of the lecturer were generally favourable with agreement exceeding 80% except in the area of making them feel a part of the university (58% agreeing, with 32% undecided and 10% responding negatively).


183

Figure 5: Student Perception of Lectures

Table 8. I utilised the following university resources

Answer Options Not at all Occasionally Frequently

Library 26 14 0

MyLO online learning program 18 21 2

The low level of use of the library (65% did not use the library at all), and the UTAS Online Learning System (50% occasional use of MyLO), which contains useful learning resources additional to assignments is perhaps a concern given the importance of these resources forboth the UCP units and ongoing university study

Additional Comments

The free comment area yielded one very positive response:

• Was a good experience and I would recommend it to anyone one that its thinking about furthering their language studies at university :-)

Two comments were about the absence of French in the northern UTAS campuses:


184

• It is cruel to run this for students in the north with no French University program offered in Launceston.

• The University College Program was useful for those who wish to continue studying French at University, myself being one of those people. Unfortunately, for many of us, continuing this language which we enjoy so much is not possible as it is not yet offered at the Northern Campus. Myself, among many other Northern students believe it's about time French was offered in the North. As I'm sure College Language Program coordinators would agree, language is an important art which we mustn't let become phased out of modern learning. Offering French in the North will keep these learning options open to numerous amounts of enthusiastic students.

Three Japanese students addedcomments, one student felt positive whilst the others were concerned at the length and pace of the workshops:

• I thought this learning program was good, as it made studies in Japanese at school a whole lot easier as more ground knowledge was known that wouldn't otherwise be taught in Yr 12.

• I hope that the actual course is better than these workshops. They were much too rushed and the teacher was not very helpful.

• The workshops went for too long therefore it was hard to concentrate due to a lack of energy. • The speaking examination at the conclusion of the second workshop did not co-ordinate with

what is expected in the TCE speaking examination. Being constantly pushed to ask the examiner questions left many of us feeling out of our depth and confused and was not helpful to familiarising ourselves to the structure of TCE speaking examination.

Conclusion

The survey results indicate that generally the students were satisfied with the languages program and saw that it benefited their language learning. Most significantly, most remain ambassadors for the program in their colleges.

The main areas to be addressed would appear to be the affective UTAS identity issue and the use of the Library and online learning resources. If students feel a part of the university then this should reinforce commitment to both the program and UTAS.

Responses also suggest that cleared communication is required for example reinforcement that the languages program will support TCE capabilities indirectly, but is not specifically targeted to improve TCE outcomes but rather ensure that students meet the learning outcomes for first year language units..

Dr John Kertesz, Facilitator, Languages Program, UTAS College and

Associate Professor Anne Langworthy, Academic Director, UTAS college

11 January 2010


185

Appendix 15: Report UTAS College Symposium (University Preparation and Pathways Symposium)

Brief Report UTAS College Symposium (University Preparation and Pathways Symposium)

Introduction Two symposia/forums were held at the University of Tasmania, one in Hobart, June 23, and one in Launceston, June 30, for involved University of Tasmania staff and invited senior secondary staff in order to promote collaboration and collegiality around the UTAS College Pilot Program and wider University preparation and pathways agenda.

The objectives of the Symposia were:

To provide a forum for the wider discussion of University preparation and pathways including raising aspirations of school students to attend University

As part of this, to provide a framework for discussing and further developing the ‘UTAS College Program’

To Provide for consultation with senior secondary teaching staff to address:

o Their role in the UTAS College Programme;

o Recognition through honorary appointment to UTAS or alternatives;

o Induction/staff development and support required

o Access to facilities and resources

To provide a forum for the discussion of curriculum issues including:

o Assessment of Units where extension of TCE is used (including appropriateness of additional exams);

o Criterion referenced assessment (College assessment and UTAS assessment)

To collaboratively establish research and evaluation questions for the UTAS College Pilot Program and University preparation and pathways

To establish a methodology for ongoing contact and collaboration between the University and secondary.

Professor Gary O’Donovan, PVC (Students and Education), and Mike Brakey, CEO of The Academy opened both sessions and set the context for group deliberations. The four areas considered individually by groups were : Quality Assurance and Co delivered Units of University Study, Teacher Learning and Development, Access and Equity, and Learning Pathways.

There were two plenary sessions: one midway through the day where group questions were addresses by a panel (Panel members Hobart: Frank Bansel Education Department; Jules Carroll, The Polytechnic; Mike Brakey, The Academy; Dawn Penny, Faculty of Education; Anne Langworthy UTAS College. Panel members Launceston: Ian Hay, Faculty of


186

Education; Anne Ripper, The Polytechnic; Andrew Barr, Scotch Oakburn; Mike Brakey, The Academy; Anne Langworthy, UTAS College).

The final session of the Symposium was a plenary where group recommendations were shared.

The questions put to the panel and the recommendations and attendance at both events are included in this brief report. Please note that the questions and recommendations have not been edited or synthesised at this stage. Questions for the Panel Hobart Symposium -

• We have recognised that the CALD group is quite unique in the equity groups. Encouraging access is not the issue – they are highly motivated. But due to disrupted education, insufficient exposure to English and lack of understanding of the Australian education system they are often unprepared to cope with the demands of study at tertiary level. How do we adequately support them across the sectors?

• What do we mean by ‘partnership’? What should it look like at the chalk/interactive whiteboard face?

• How do we ensure teacher quality across all sectors – schools, senior secondary, University?

• Should University staff conduct sessions at school information nights?

• Should the University make representation to TQA regarding decisions that impact on programs?

• What resources can UTAS offer teachers to support workloads?

• Can there be a clear statement of expectations for teachers?

• Is there a common set of skills that we can define and articulate? Is there a common set of key attributes for each of the three TCE certificates?

• How do both sectors better prepare students for University? What role does UTAS have within schools/colleges? What role do schools/colleges have?

• How do we form better and more developed relationships – and how do we support his financially?

• How do we fill the void of TQA not being involved in moderation? Is there a place for University involvement in building a richer process?

• How do we build synergy and models so that professional learning is time and cost effective?

• Can the model used by the conservatorium be replicated as a solution based rather than problem based model?

• What are the implications of national curriculum and assessment for a professional learning model?


187

Questions for the Panel Launceston Symposium

• What is the Tasmanian Polytechnic doing to improve access and equity to identified groups;

• What data is being collected showing retention from year 12 to University;

• What role do parent groups; alumni and other community groups have in helping to redress equity and access problems.

• Is there a correlation between changes in the High Achiever Program and the delivery of other Universities within the UTAS College model?

• Can the University take a more coordinated approach to Colleges to ensure that students, parents and College staff are aware of the range of programs on offer and have an opportunity to receive information from the UTAS staff involve dint he programs as well as an opportunity to enrol in the programs?

• What is the extent of resources provided for the UTAS College model? How much is UTAS contributing and how much should Colleges be contributing? (visits, teaching, liaison, coordination, pastoral care, professional development)

• Why should students undertake year 11 and 12 if they can effectively study first year University in year 12?

• Should structures be available for research active College teachers to further their research/build their career structure through UTAS as honorary research fellows or other associate arrangements?

• What specific work can we do to prepare students for the university experience of learning? (teaching for understanding framework in Years 11/12 contrasts with the style of learning demanded by many faculties eg memory testing.

• How might we better support students as learners? (We talked a lot about how a critical factor in success at university is to have some success in what you are doing; things like the university mentor program were seen as very useful)

• How can we update the skills of teachers/lecturers? (the science of learning)

• What assumptions does the university make about students’ attitudes towards learning and their coping skills?(ie the TE score and academic success is all that is measured)

• What are the implications for our teacher training programs of the Academy - UTAS links and pathways?

• How might we support beginning teachers in the transition from study to work?

Recommendations Access and Equity Group Hobart 1) Representatives of all sectors working together to achieve UTAS student access and

equity goals will require collegial sharing of information, expertise and problem-solving capacity. In order to develop genuine and ‘embedded’ collegiality among Symposium participants, and between Symposium participants and colleagues working at grass roots level in schools, colleges, the Academy, the Polytechnic and the Skills Institute, the following are recommended:-


188

a) Circulation of a list for each ‘theme’ group containing names, email address, institution and position, of participants and others wishing to be involved with that group.

b) Follow-up Symposium meetings ‘on site’ of disadvantaged, rural and regional locations and institutions, in order to consult and share ideas with teachers and educators who are dealing with student access and equity issues on a day to day basis.

2) The most disadvantaged students (e.g. low SES, rural, indigenous and students with a disability), have special needs to which institutions need to be responsive in co-ordinated and transparent ways. In this context, there is an expressed need by teachers and educators for greater clarity and shared understandings of rules and guidelines regarding access and alternative entry requirements, credit transfer, flexible and on-line learning opportunities, length of time allowed for course completion and so on. In order to encourage cross-sectoral information and collaboration with respect to facilitating disadvantaged students’ pathways to higher education the following are recommended:-

a) Setting up of a Working Party on ‘Student Entitlements’ to ‘drill down’ into the issues involved and report back to the UTAS college .

b) Establish a partnership with a school in a rural or low SES area to find out how the issues of access, equity and student entitlement are being tackled, to create ongoing dialogue and in collaboration to develop a model of best practice which might be imported to other schools.

Access and Equity Group Launceston 1) UTAS increases the flexibility of their course offerings:

a) Summer/winter schools

b) Online flexible Universities

c) Applied/problem based learning models

d) Work placements

e) Recognition of current competence

f) Recognise part-time study difficulties

g) Outreach programs to engage with the community

2) Targeted mentoring of students from families with no background in higher education:

a) One on one with the student

b) Regular contact with the student

c) Regular contact with the family

3) UTAS involves itself with parent teacher evenings in both secondary and primary schools.

4) UTAS College programs and HAP programs provide more options in the regions.

5) Normalise enrolment in UTAS Universities through UTAS College as a matter of course in the Academy and Independent Schools.


189

6) Publicise alternative entry (other than TER) methodologies better. For example:

a) UPP

b) Associate Degree

7) Publicise successful role models/UTAS students from the regions in the region.

8) Work with teachers (secondary and primary) to raise the aspirations of their students.

9) Raise community aspirations for their young people (i.e. to obtain a UTAS qualification)

Quality Assurance and Co delivered Units of University Study Hobart 1) UTAS linking in with moderation and development.

2) Roles (Responsibilities defined – formalising relationships (Currently informal arrangements).

3) We need to scope out changes rather than take them on in one hit.

4) UTAS to be involved in Year 10/11 info evenings to encourage students earlier.

5) Formalised recognition of teaching ie Honorary Associate (Library, MyLo, UTAS Resources)

6) Cross pollination of Teaching between organisations.

Quality Assurance and Co-delivered Units of University Study Launceston

1) That UTAS examine the opportunities for tertiary courses that might be of interest to year 11/12 to be offered and accredited by TQA (ie not a direct extension of current year 11/12 Units.

2) That the information and marketing of UTAS College Units be more consolidated/coordinated/coherent and collaborative and that it be a staged process from College information nights and be included in college handbooks.

*That it include all sectors. It not include merely marketing staff but also experts in the field *colleague teacher/student/parent credibility.

3) That College Handbooks contain information about UTAS College programs and that these be circulated either for 2010 handbooks not issued or as an addendum.

4) That UTAS and secondary sectors resource commitment should be identified and clarified.

Teacher Learning and Development Launceston

1) Foster a greater exchange between UTAS, Academy, Polytechnic and other year 11/12 staff through eg. Teaching Symposia, education fora, exchange teaching, regular

excursions both ways, researchers located and active on Academy and other sites, extended buddy system in discipline group.


190

2) The key is DIALOGUE.

3) Investigate opportunities to alter Teachers Award

in order to promote, recognise and reward further study, or through TRB for reaccreditation.

4) Make research

more sexy! Make it exciting to be involved in research. University onus to outreach.

Teacher Learning and Development Hobart 1) Models should provide support collaboration, be on going, be flexible, include options

such as university mentor support person and acknowledge different ways of learning.

2) Flexibility includes: a) Location

b) Model of delivery

c) Time span

d) Interest

e) Level of accreditation

f) Variable and negotiated assessment.

3) Professional Learning opportunities should earn transition points eg Middle school to Senior High.

4) Resources should be provided for programs that meet the above model and build synergy to be time and cost effective.

5) That retraining in discipline areas of need be supported.

6) Implementation of the National Curriculum should be supported with systemic professional learning on the above model.

Learning Pathways Hobart

1) Articulate a set of common skills or attributes for a sequential K-University education.

2) Explore and evaluate various models of delivering UTAS courses to those most ready and for whom greater inclusiveness would be an advantage.


191

3) Develop a common cross-sectoral understanding of curriculum, assessment and standards.

4) Develop practical processes to facilitate communication eg.

i) UTAS lecturers attend QA meetings in regional centres

ii) TQA course writing

iii) Publicising UTAS events in School and College newsletters

iv) Secondary teacher secondments to UTAS

v) Appointment of University Liaison officers

5) Establish a formal cross sectoral structure to facilitate this.

6) Explore ways in which these processes can be resourced adequately.

Learning Pathways Launceston

Improved Communications/Relationships

1) Communicate to students the importance of understanding the variety of entry points to University. High TE score in Year 12 is not the only entry point. eg Polytechnic Pathways, mature entry, YB

2) Greater dialogue between teaching staff at UTAS and year 11/12 teachers about the skills and capabilities required to succeed at University. eg academic literacy timetable, flexible learning, time management. UTAS Careers/Course Counselors provide excellent service to colleges/academics. 3rd year students mentoring younger students. Students Mentor Program to be expanded to more faculties.

3) Teacher > UTAS as Teaching and Learning coach for students bringing UTAS teachers in as guest speakers.

4) UTAS College programs that work best are those that are co-delivered, in both year 11/12 and UTAS environments.

5) SDI to be accredited as a first year UTAS Unit and link year 11/12 students to academic mentors.

6) Explore new and a variety of strategies to support new students at UTAS (transition) eg sharing staff year 11/12.


192


193

Appendix 16: Student & Academic Administration Submission

Student & Academic Administration

Submission to UTAS College Review May 2010

Preamble

This submission has been prepared by Student & Academic Administration in consultation with the Manager Student Recruitment & Marketing.

The submission has been developed following a preliminary discussion with the Academic Director UTAS College about the process and scope of the UTAS College Review; and to address the following specific questions addressed to the Section by the Academic Director, UTAS College:

“The key questions for the Admissions team include:

• What are/should be the process for confirming the approval of a unit being offered through the University College Program (post Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee approval)? What timelines are required?

• Who should vet double enrolments and what should be the process for managing withdrawal from the other unit (identifying which unit is most appropriate to retain, appropriate documentation and approval of change of enrolment etc)

• Under what circumstances, if any, should we allow double enrolment?

• What is the most efficient way to manage the provision of ID cards?

• Does UTAS College require an academic administrator?

• What is the best method for developing the information booklet/flyer that will go to schools/colleges in August?

• How do we best manage enrolment for an ongoing program?

• How can we best manage ongoing moderation with the TQA?

• What are the most problematic aspects of the College program from the SAS perspective and do you have any recommendations about how to remedy these problems?”

Academic Administration - Program Model and Student Lifecycle

Student & Academic Administration has supported the academic administration of College Programs from their inception. This support has followed the “program model” involving a stream-lined admission enrolment process to assist a cohort of students enter a predefined course and unit template. As a process, the “program model” provides a very high degree of flexibility enabling S&AA staff to efficiently respond to requests to enrol cohorts of students in programs (often at very short notice).


194

For students, “program model” provides a tailored and strictly controlled process that guides students through admission and enrolment with minimal confusion for the students, ensuring students:

• are enrolled in the correct course and units; • have a program code applied to the student record to identify them as a participant of each

specific program; • receive the appropriate HECS waiver; • have completed the relevant Commonwealth Assistance Forms; • receive their username and password and advice about using them; • understand how their result will be derived.

The “program approach” involves obtaining various academic approvals from the relevant UTAS School and Faculty including an information sheet detailing the course, unit, assessment requirements (assignments, workshops and examination arrangements; mode; delivery; locations; semester and whether it is a standard UTAS unit or co-delivery. The process often involves discussion with the TQA concerning the impact on the TCE, in order to determine the TQA reporting requirements and how the final UTAS result will be derived. Different pilot programs have been trialled testing the various elements of program design, including differences in:

• modes of delivery (co-delivery versus full unit delivery); • on and off UTAS campus; • delivery of learning materials (on-campus, on-line, off-campus and weekend workshops); • timing and location of examinations (some scheduled with standard UTAS exams on-campus

or off-campus and some timed after TCE examinations); • bases of assessment and result calculation (some derived from TCE result); • the ways result contribute to TCE and/or TER; • census dates; • type of unit taught – foundation versus first year.

While the need to pilot a number of different models is acknowledged, the multiplicity of program arrangements is resource intensive both in terms of the academic administration and in the information and advice provided to students, parents and staff (including UTAS and senior secondary sector).

As the number of programs and participants has grown this approach has become increasingly resource intensive and demands for delivery at short notice, have, similarly, become difficult to resource resulting in a less than optimal service for Colleges and students.

In terms of positioning and promoting the UTAS College Programs there has been quite a bit of confusion amongst College staff on the various programs, and the nuances between the different types of Programs (eg full UTAS units, co-delivered units, on-campus versus off-campus delivery and particularly around results and the TCE/TER). There has also been some confusion about UTAS College and the University College Program amongst students, Careers Advisors, parents and teaching staff in the senior secondary sector. For many students and parents, the University College Program will be their first introduction to dealing with UTAS in a customer relationship and it is


195

extremely important for us to establish a professional, user friendly approach right from the beginning. This will then set the scene with positive expectations for future dealings when we hope they will become UTAS students post year 12.

A key recommendation for academic administration is that should College Programs continue, they be re-integrated into mainstream business processes in the following ways:

• Adopt a single, or at most dual, model for University College Programs with a standard approach to program design so as to reduce the confusion amongst staff and students about what the different programs are, the different methods for deriving a result and the differing connection with the TCE and TER.

• Program (course and unit) development should be standardised to ensure approvals occur using existing mechanisms (Faculty Teaching & Learning Committees) with standard documentation, including information for students;

• As part of the Program development process, key stakeholders should be involved – UTAS College, School, Faculty, SR&M and S&AA.

• Marketing and student recruitment should be integrated within existing Student Recruitment & Marketing activities. SR&M has established relationships, networks, event and communication channels with the senior secondary sector which should be exploited for maximum benefit to the University, the sector and the students.

• Scholarship opportunities for High Achievers and College Program participants should be considered to ensure consistent and connected approaches, and considered in the broader context and review of the High Achiever program (eg the relationship of springboard scholarships to College Program participants).

• Admission and Enrolment activities and census dates should be timed to suit the sector, but reduced from multiple census dates spanning February to May for semester 1 to a single approach covering all College Programs if possible.

• If College Programs continue with participation at current levels, S&AA would look towards utilising existing on-line application and enrolment processes, with appropriate connections to Ready for Uni processes.

• ID Cards – align with bulk card production processes currently used with offshore and distance student groups (eg bulk production of cards using existing college photos).

• Result management and notification also needs to be reviewed and refined, particularly for those students who do not utilise on-line or on-campus learning or support services (ie for those students not using MyLO or eStudentCentre). At one point a written communication from the UTAS College congratulating the participant and providing the result was considered and S&AA would endorse this approach.

Maximum enrolment load

Addressing the various questions concerning maximum enrolment load, S&AA notes that the current approach is that responsibility for approving participation in Programs, including the assessment of individual student capacity to undertake multiple programs, has rested with the student’s school and parents. S&AA also notes that

S&AA would not propose an arbitrary limit because of the many ways in which multiple enrolments may present. A small sample of the different scenarios that are possible follows:

• Students undertaking multiple co-delivery style units are undertaking the bulk of the curriculum as part of their standard TCE curriculum. The extension work involved to cover


196

the 20-30% curriculum difference should be considered rather than the total weight of the unit. For example, a student undertaking two language subjects in year 11 TCE curriculum might seek to participate in the College Language Program for each language, resulting in a 50% first year UTAS enrolment.

• Students undertaking full UTAS units in addition to their year 11/12 enrolment may need to be carefully monitored and notified to the relevant schools to ensure all parties are aware of the workload and in particular the balance and impact on their year 11/12 studies.

• Participation in multiple Programs (College and Community) across multiple semesters resulting in a high cumulative UTAS load. For example, a student participating in the Summer Rock Program (Community Program semester 3) plus participating in Overture or Prelude as a gifted music student as well as enrolment in the University College Performing Arts Program because of involvement with a school/college production as well as involvement in a Community Program for eg CATS.

• Exceptional circumstances for a gifted HAP student who has exhausted all discipline options at TCE level due to early advancement throughout high school.

S&AA notes the demand for ongoing language enrolments arising from student participation in the College Language Program (CLP) in year 11. There is a gap of language offerings for year 12 students who have completed the TCE and CLP in year 11. This year we have seen an increased number of students (enquiries and applications) for entry to HAP for the purpose of continuity in their language studies.

Timing and approaches to recruitment of students to College Programs if not synchronised can lead to students signing up for multiple programs without the senior secondary school/college fully understanding the number of programs taken up by individuals. There is scope for improved coordination of recruitment of students to programs and improvements in feedback to schools/colleges and parents.

Another consideration is the extent of financial support (HECS waiver) that an individual student may access from UTAS.

Development of Program Information and Communication materials

The academic administration of Programs involves a range of administrative and academic staff including Faculty, School, Student Recruitment & Marketing, Student & Academic Administration. To ensure appropriate administrative arrangements are in place and to ensure students receive accurate and consistent information and advice, it is essential that the academic administration arrangements are developed early and include all the relevant parties, particularly those who need to approve particular elements of the process. These then need to connect with the information and advice conveyed to students and other stakeholders.

Similarly, web-based information and brochures need to be derived from the same single sources to ensure that information is delivered consistently to all students. The approach should be consistent with existing marketing plans and visual standards for student communication.


197

S&AA recommends that a communication plan is developed collaboratively which links to existing communication strategies and networks with the senior secondary sector.

University College and the TQA and TCE

The multiplicity of programs and the various arrangements each has in relation to the way in which results contribute (or not) to the TCE and TER has been confusing for many. The process of moderation has also been problematic at times.

It is recommended that the TQA is fully consulted on any future program model, including a full exploration of the impact of results on the TCE and TER. It is also important that the process for translating UTAS results into TCE equivalent scores is equitable and consistent with TQA approaches to scaling.

Student & Academic Administration

May 2010


198


199

Appendix 17: Addition data UCP students – summary histories

Table 1: Units studied

Unit

UCP study area Total enrolments Arts Business Computing Language Music Philosophy

Visual & Performing Arts

BFA103 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 FCE106 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 FCE107 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 51 FCE141 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 34 FCE142 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 FCE210 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 FCE216 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FCE220 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 FCE241 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 FCE242 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FCG110 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 FCG120 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 FCM101 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FCM110 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 FCM111 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 FCM112 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 FCM113 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FCN120 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FCP110 0 0 0 0 383 0 0 383 FCP120 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 FCT110 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 FFA102 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 FFA138 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 FFE102 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 37 FFE103 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 FFE104 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 112 FFE105 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 113 FFP250 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 FPB103 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 FPB105 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 FPB107 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 FPB306 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 FPM111 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 FSA111 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 HAB102 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HAB103 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HEF101 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 64 HEF102 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 51 HEF103 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 53


200

HEG101 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 HEG102 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 HEG103 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 HMA101 35 0 0 0 1 0 0 36 HMC101 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 HMC102 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 26 HMC103 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 HMJ101 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 80 HMJ102 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 69 HMJ103 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 59 HMJ206 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 HMJ207 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 HMN101 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 HMN102 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 HMN103 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 HPA103 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27 HPA105 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 KXH012 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 26 Total 38 6 26 480 614 35 387 1586

Table 2: Study area by POE

Student's main POE

Music Languages Visual & performing arts

Arts Philosophy Business Total

13A 15 8 3 1 3 0 30 13B 8 0 11 0 0 0 19 R3A 8 11 0 0 0 0 19 F3K 14 1 1 0 0 0 16 43B 6 1 3 0 1 0 11 R2B 1 6 2 0 1 0 10 M3N 3 4 0 0 1 0 8 33A 3 0 0 0 1 3 7 13C 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 63C 3 2 1 0 0 0 6 13K 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 43A 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 13J 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 73O 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 F3J 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 F3S 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 H3D 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 N3C 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 63H 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 E3A 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 F3T 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 G3F 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 M3F 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 M3H 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 R2A 0 3 0 0 0 0 3


201

13I 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 13M 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 43D 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 63D 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 63E 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 73B 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 73E 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 73J 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 L3D 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 N3A 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 R3K 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 R3N 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 S3G 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 13E 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 13F 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13G33E 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 13H 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 33C 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 33D 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 33E 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 53A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 63A 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 73A 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 73D 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 73P 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 C3E 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 D3A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 F3E 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 H3H 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 J1T 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 K3B 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 K3E 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 K3P 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 L3J 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M3G 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 M3M63A 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 R3A73E 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 R3I 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 R3O 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 R3U 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 S3I 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 S3L 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 S3N 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 S3V 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total 108 75 38 2 18 3 244*

*This number exceeds 227 because students are counted in each UCP area in which they study


202


203

Appendix 18: Data for students doing approved UTAS units

Note that the data is for students who have results in approved university units, which will include HAP, Prelude, UTAS College and other programs.

Note that the contrast is between two groups - those with a TER but no UTAS units and those with a UTAS unit. Some students will appear multiple times - they have more than one university unit

SES quartile

counts

low middle high

Have TER but no approved UTAS units 788 2853 2575

have TER and approved UTAS units 68 210 247

Table 1

Percentages

low middle high



Table 2

association

Pearson's Chi-squared test

P value 0.02

Remoteness quartile

counts

near middle far



Table 3

Percentages

near middle far



Table 4


204

association

Pearson's Chi-squared test

P value

Gender

note that for gender, the counts are of unique persons

counts

Female Male Have TER but no approved UTAS units 3590 2709 have TER and approved UTAS units 211 154 Table 5

Percentages

Female Male Have TER but no approved UTAS units 57 43 have TER and approved UTAS units 58 42 Table 6

association

Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction

P value 0.

UTAS University College Program Evaluation – June 2010

202

Appendix 19: Using results in University units in the calculation of Australian Tertiary Admission Ranks (ATAR)

Purpose To identify the basis for review of these procedures in 2010 for implementation in 2011 and beyond

Background

The TQA does the calculations for ATAR s (the name since 2009 for the TER) as part of its productive partnership with the University of Tasmania.

Calculations are based on results in TQA accredited senior secondary courses at TQA level 3 with an external assessment regime and on results in university units approved by the university and delivered to students engaged in senior secondary studies.

This is done within an agreed 1

• breadth and depth of pre-tertiary studies should be encouraged but not mandated

set of policies:

• students should not obtain an unfair advantage over students who take a broad range of studies by having more than one scaled score for what is essentially the same learning (‘double-dipping’)

• there should be robust quality assurance for such subjects

• the processes used to derive scaled scores should seek to ensure that there is no automatic advantage or disadvantage simply as a result of taking any particular combination of subjects.

There is also an agreed mechanism for review of the how these policies are implemented. This is done through a Review Group comprising the UTAS Executive Director Planning & Development, CEO TQA, UTAS Academic Registrar, TQA Manager Operations

The inclusion of results in university units in the ATAR dates from 2005. This requires a table of scaled values for such results. Initially, in the absence of data, the table was necessarily based on a priori considerations. This was done, however, in the context of an agreement that the scaled values should be based on data about student achievement.

Previous discussion of issues In November2008, discussion of the issues by the review group identified the following:

• need to review the TER rules and scoring system to take account of UTAS unit options and to refine scoring/ranking mechanism

1 Exchange of letters between TQA Chair and UTAS Vice-chancellor


203

• consideration should be given to how many results in university units should be allowed to count towards the TER – should the maximum allowed be increased from two to four?

• a longer-term approach may need more extensive consultation. It might be preferable to set a minimum number of subjects that need to be taken from the current schedule of pre-tertiary subjects - perhaps 3/4 which will ensure that most students achieve UTAS entrance requirements on the basis of existing subjects, but students who want a greater challenge are able to take as many university level units as is acceptable to their school/college.

• UTAS does not enrol students in university units without agreement of a student’s principal

• the scaled values for university units should be reviewed

Current situation

Growth in numbers

Overall The following table shows the growth in numbers of senior secondary students receiving a score relevant to the calculation of an ATAR in University studies from 2005 to 2009.

It is clear that

• 2009 is the first year in which there are sufficient numbers for an informative analysis of the data

• there is growing tendency to take a university subject in the year before receiving an ATAR

• there are students in Year 12/13 who are participating in a university subject without being eligible for an ATAR (these are often, but not always, students taking Music related studies)

• the number and proportion of students with the highest possible result is low

• there is an increasing proportion of ‘Pass’ results.

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Count of UTAS results

24 40 46 99 346

Total students with

12 22 25 71 302


204

one or more UTAS results

Number of these students with a tertiary entrance rank this year

9 18 16 28 137

Grade 10 3 4

Grade 11 3 7 39 138

Grade 12/13 9 19 18 29 158

Distribution of results

Terminating Pass

1

Pass 1 3 23 118

Credit 6 10 18 26 100

Distinction 14 14 11 23 82

High Distinction

4 14 14 27 46

By category

The UTAS results in table one come from 100 different courses – for nearly all courses (the clear exceptions are Foundation Practical Study and Advanced Practical Study) the number of students involved is tiny.

For analysis purposes, therefore, courses have been grouped into six groups: Art, Music, Maths/Science, Humanities, Languages, Business

The table below shows the distribution of results in these six course areas. There are clear differences in the distribution of results by course area.

Art Music Maths/Sc Humanities Languages Business

Terminating 0 1 0 0 0 0


205

Pass

Pass 1 138 1 4 1 0

Credit 5 135 0 13 7 0

Distinction 9 87 4 16 27 1

High Distinction

1 30 17 22 26 9

Total 16 391 22 55 61 10

Review of current data

Distribution of University unit scores by course area For the purpose of giving credit towards an ATAR a result in a university course is given a score. These scores are set out in a table that was determined in 2005 in the absence of data (copy attached). There are now sufficient data to allow a review of the appropriateness of the first two of the following assumptions behind this table and its use:

• university courses in the program have essentially comparable results

• the values in the table do not confer an automatic advantage or disadvantage on a student solely by virtue of enrolment in this option

• the quality assurance procedures for results in University units are comparably robust with those for other categories of results included in the determination of an ATAR.

The values in the table range from 0 to 26, where 26 is for a person who obtains a score of over 90 per cent in the course assessment.

The following histogram shows the distribution of these scores by course area. There are clear differences in these distributions – for example, the proportion of high scores is much higher amongst the small numbers of students obtaining a result in the Maths/Science area than it is amongst the much larger numbers with a result in Music. This pattern is repeated at the top end – of the 17 High Distinction results in Maths/Science, 10 (60 per cent) are at the highest level, whereas of the 30 High Distinction results in the Music area, 4 (13 per cent) are at the highest level.


206

Differences between course areas

To analyse these difference by course areas in the context of the use of results for ATAR purposes, it is necessary to have some (independent) measure of student ability. This measure of student ability should, because of the use of the results in the determination of an ATAR, relate to overall academic ability, not subject-specific ability.2

For the purposes of this study, we used a measure of overall ability derived from students’ achievements in TQA accredited level 3 courses (the externally assessed courses giving results used in the determination of an ATAR).

Each year, we apply Rasch modelling (using the program ConQuest to find Partial Credit Model item and person parameters) to the TQA externally assessed data. This provides (suitably transformed) scale values for each award in each subject. In the language of Rasch modelling, we find, and then use, ‘person-free item parameters’.

2 The significance of the difference between an estimate of subject achievement (eg how good are you at speaking this language or how good are you at solving this sort of mathematical problem) and an estimate of overall achievement (how good are you at doing well in academic studies) is often lost sight of in discussions of scaling and the meaning of an ATAR. An ATAR is intended to compare students in terms of their overall achievements, regardless of the subjects they’ve done, not to compare their specific subject achievement. If you want to know how good a student is at music, you should look at the music results. If you want to compare this student with another student who did a different set of subjects, you should look at their ATAR.

Distribution of score by course area

Score.value

Per

cent

of T

otal

0

20

40

60

80

Art

0 5 10 15 20 25

Mus MSc

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hum Lang

0 5 10 15 20 25

0

20

40

60

80

Bus


207

At the same time, the Rasch modelling also establishes an estimate for each student of ‘overall ability’ (in the language of Rasch modelling ‘item-free person parameter’). These estimates are not used in the determination of an ATAR (although they correlate well with the final result).

For this study, we modelled both the 2008 and 2009 TQA level 3 data sets, deriving an estimate of overall ability from each data set. Where students had results in both 2008 and 2009, we combined these two estimates (in the ratio 2:3) to give an average estimate of overall ability. Note that this estimate does not have in it any results in university units3

The following box and whiskers

and so is suitable for use in this study.

4

plot shows the distribution of these ability estimates by level (Pass, Credit …) by course group.

It seems clear (and statistical analysis supports this 5

3 It could be a good idea to do some Rasch modelling on a data set including results in university units in the Rasch modelling. This is not possible until there is enough data and even then presents problems since the lowest possible result we have is almost always ‘Pass’. Rasch modelling requires the inclusion of some results below this level. There are some approximate techniques that could be used.

) that there are systematic differences between the various course groupings:

4 Each box shows where the middle 50 percent of values lie, the dot in each box shows the median.

5 Correlations (pairwise) of Score value and average ability for data including and excluding results in the Music course area; linear modelling of Score value in terms of Av.Ability and course grouping

Av.Ability

PassCreditDistinctionHigh Distinction


208

• in most areas other than music there is a clear tendency for students with higher ‘average ability’ (ie those who do better in senior secondary studies) to do better in their results in university units – this is not so for students with High Distinction in Music – they tend to have lower ability estimates6

• students with high results in university studies in Maths/Science/Business areas have much higher overall ‘ability’ (= are higher achieving overall in senior secondary studies) than students with high results in other course areas

Impact on ATAR

The estimate of overall ability can also be used to look at the impact on an ATAR of having a result in a university unit.

The following graph plots a normalised ATAR 7

The effect of making an ATAR of 40.0 the lowest possible is clearly apparent. The relationship between (normalised) ATAR and the ability estimate is, to a first approximation, linear (correlation is 0.94)

against the ability estimate, together with a line of best fit.

8

.

6 All this says is that achievement in Music is less related to overall achievement in academic studies than is the case for other areas, something commonly observed in the senior secondary context.

7 An ATAR is a percentile rank. Normalising turns the percentile rank into a ‘normal’ score on the same sort of scale as the ability estimates we got from Rasch modelling.

8 There may be a non-linear effect of the fact that an ATAR is best on a ‘best five’ average – this is likely to tend to have a greater effect on lower achieving students.

normalised ATAR versua ability estimate

Av.Ability

(nor

mal

ised

) ATA

R

0

1

2

3

-2 0 2 4


209

Some students will have higher ATAR than expected from the estimated ability and some lower. We would like to see ‘no significant and systematic difference in this relationship by virtue of membership of a group’.

For the 2009 data set, we have some 100 groups :

• gender9

• four groups for different categories of students with results in university units - Music, Humanities, Maths/Science, Languages)

• ninety-five groups based on having a result in an externally assessed TQA accredited courses in 2009 or 2008.

The following graph identifies membership of three groups by letters, ‘m’, ‘M’ and ‘L’:

• ‘m’ for those with a result in a university unit in the Music group

• ‘M’ for those with a result in a university unit in the Maths/Science group

• ‘L’ for those with a result in a university unit in the Language group.

9 There is no significant association of Gender and (normalised) ATAR predicted from Average Ability. There is a strong association of Gender and overall outcome – on average, males have a lower ATAR than females (~2.3). this difference is strongest in the lower regions of ATAR (<80) and not noticeable for ATAR values over 90. Males are proportionately over-represented in the lower ATAR values – this is as might be expected from considerations about gender differences in participation.


210

Visually, it looks as if

• there is a slight difference for the Music group (slightly more ‘m’s above the line than below it)

• there is a larger difference for the Language group

• one of the two students in the Maths/Sc group has a ATAR noticeably higher than estimated from the ability estimate.

We need a quantitative idea of the size and significance of any differences that appear to be there. We can do this by looking for each possible group at the residuals (the difference between actual normalised ATAR and the value expected from the relationship between ATAR and estimated ability).

The mean residual (average difference) for the three groups identified in the above graph are 0.04 (Music), 0.80 (Maths/Sc), 0.18 (Lang). Are these numbers significant and big10

10 There’s no point in worrying about statistically significant effects that are not big enough to matter .

?

normalised ATAR versua ability estimate

Av.Ability

(nor

mal

ised

) ATA

R

0

1

2

3

-2 0 2 4

m

m

m

m

m

mm

m

m

m

m

L

m

m

m

m

m

M

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

mm

m

m

m

L

m

mm

m

m

m

m m

m

L

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

mm

L

mm

m

m

m

m

L

L

m

mm

mL

m

L

m

m

m

m

m m

m

L

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

LLm

m

M


211

A difference of 0.2 means that on average people in this group have a normalised ATAR 0.2 higher than expected from the ability estimate. This translates into an ATAR scale as a difference of 3 in ATAR for an ATAR value of 70 and a difference of 0.5 for an ATAR value of 97.5.

There are 100 groups. There are ten cases where the mean residual is both statistically significant and bigger than 0.1. Two of these cases are for the groups doing university units in Maths/Science and in Languages. The Music residual is, as seems so from the graph, neither significant nor large. The Maths/Sc residual is both large (0.8) and significant, even with only two cases.

There can be several possible causes for a group having mean residuals that are large and significant:

• student in this group tend to take other subjects that are very similar to each other and in which they get similar results

• students in this group do what is essentially the same subject several times and do well each time

• some part of the procedure for estimating scaled values does not work as intended (e.g. for small groups where there is not enough data to allow the scaling process to work properly )

• students in this group concentrate in other subjects mostly taken by students who achieve very well in most subjects they do

The first three possibilities may be contributing to the explanation for the significant and large residuals for the Maths/Sc and Languages group:

• there may not be sufficient difference in demand and content between Mathematics Specialised and the university mathematics units these two students took

• there may not be sufficient difference in demand and content between senior secondary language courses and the university language units these eleven students took

• the table of values for university units may be too high for the higher levels of results

Issues

There are at least six issues that warrant consideration during 2010 , with actions as from 2011 where possible.

1. Assumption about equivalence of all university results The current tables are based on an assumption that all results in first year university units are essentially equivalent in terms of what they indicate about a student’s academic achievement/ability. From the data we have so far, it appears that this assumption may be sufficiently unsound as to suggest the need to consider having different values for some categories of studies. It is possible, of course, that the variation is greater within categories of studies than it is between categories of studies. The current data set is not large enough to explore this possibility.


212

2. Significant overlap between senior secondary subjects and results in university units – real or perceived

There are obvious possibilities of at least apparent overlap between senior secondary subjects and first year university units. For example, students taking Mathematics Specialised and university units in mathematics are taking university mathematics units for which Mathematics Specialised is not a pre-requisite, so it is possible that the content and standards are not clearly distinct.

3. Complications and timing In 2009, we received data about students with results in university units close to the end of the year and without using the TQA student identifier. There were learners included in the data set who were clearly not senior secondary students. It would be helpful to receive a preliminary data set for checking at around the time we confirm students’ enrolments.

4. Data verification It is not clear how the results are verified and the procedures for students to request checks in a timely manner, given the timeline for production of ATARs

5. Review of tables and updating of values The data given above suggest the importance of updating the scaled scores in the tables. It appears that the upper values may be too high.

6. Comparability of quality assurance The data set is not big enough to give information about the comparability of the robustness of quality assurance procedures for results in externally assessed subjects and in university units. It would be appropriate to develop some clear policy statement on this and identify the basis for it.

evaluation report august 2010 - university of tasmania · university college program . evaluation...

Documents