FOAE Optimisation Town Hall Zoom Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
I've noticed that the Date is Friday 19th May- I gather this is meant to be Tuesday instead
Good thanks Wendy.
Hello everyone! (:
Hmm... I hope the session doesn't go to 4 am ;)
Did you want us to turn cams off?
Would on campus classes with an online version be affected? That will probably seriously affect on campus student cohorts.
Is the 30% across the uni or faculty?
Are other universities successfully offering micro-subjects?
Are the Charles Sturt model, Charles Sturt Advantage and the Charles Sturt Advantage model all the same thing?
Given the regular statements of how many courses are deemed 'unviable', surely we know already what they are and whether they will cease in 2021. Can you say what those courses are?
How do you provide feedback we have been doing quite a lot with industry and some of that seems to be relevant to the way forward
Jared Van Duinen
The optimisation briefing paper had a section on caveats - meeting regional workforce needs, alignment with core University values, market reputation, international cohort obligations, third party contractual commitments, and alignment with research strengths. Are there any guidelines on the criteria for meeting these caveats?
There’s also the real risk that we might see a case of ‘online fatigue’, in which case, we can’t dismiss the value of the on-campus experience, even for micro credentials
Which part of the optimisation framework links to global needs? Making a world worth living in? Is it "market orientation"?
Referring to the support just mentioned - we don’t seem to have explicit policy for teach-out and phase-out parameters/situations for students. We also don’t have adequate systemisation for projecting future enrolments within course structure requirements to a granular level. So, just tabling that for Course Directors and Course Administration Teams to effectively undertake this work and achieve course completion mapping at an individual/cohort level while concurrently achieving subject rationalisation becomes by necessity a highly manualised task. Will the future focus include developing an effective University framework to support this level of work in an ongoing capacity?
How will courses and subjects going through the course revitalisation process be impacted upon; eg the BA
What we propose a new subject structure that blends more - one offering with team teaching, to ensure on-campus and online experiences are optimised?
Will it be possible to retain two elective subjects by alternating the years in which they are offered, in order to retain diversity for students whilst maintaining numbers per session?
Are there any courses in FOAE considered to be priorities?
Wendy De Luca
Where exisiting subjects can be repackaged to offer short courses for specific groups (eg: University Cert) we can potentially increase our course offerings for little extra effort.
The Optimisation project seems to be principally focussed on reduction and diversification. Is there interest in looking to additional courses, more traditional in nature, that could be introduced to grow student numbers and/or increase subject offering viability? For example, how would a proposal to reintroduce a B Ed Primary course be received?
As part of the revenue generation, can we propose new Grad Certs for the PG studies.
There are structural reasons why our student numbers and students wanting to study at Charles Sturt have steadily declined since 2005. It is not a marketing problem. Are those structural issues (Bradley review, competition from other Universities introducing similar degrees, city Universities grabbing city students who previously came to us - a Bradley review impact). Is there a plan to address these underlying structural problems? Marketing and course strategies do not have enough impact to reverse decline. Pruning offerings to match decline will not reverse or slow ongoing decline in student numbers.
There will be a lot of attention on cutting in coming months, will there be a simultaneous process of exploring new opportunites for strategic fit, profit and market?
What potential is there for double degrees, eg Arts and Education?
Will the subjects that are lucky enough to survive be resourced properly? For example coding and robots have move into primary schools yet our ITE students still work with pipe cleaners, glue and scissors in their subjects.
If there are particular groups (schools, disciplines or degrees) which are considered being cut result of the optimisation process, can the Faculty please provide *advance* warning before a change proposal is delivered? Having experienced this in 2018, it’s clear that once a change proposal comes through, the University has already effectively made a decision to cut, but we would like an opportunity to engage in discussion about the value of our jobs before any such decisions have been made.
Where course cuts are identified and they affect multiple teaching or other staff, how will you determine which of the surplus staff will be made redundant? If there are multiple potential candidates in a work area will voluntary redundancies be offered in the first instance?
The TOL Proof of Concept Report provides interesting reading. From the information provided it seems that student satisfaction improved 5-10%, progress rates remained similar, withdrawal rates increased (6-8%), grade distributions remained the same (no statistically significant difference), students liked the flexible assessment dates and shorter turnaround times (no surprise), academics struggled with the shorter assignment marking turnaround (no surprise and a significant concern). Given these results, and a price tag in 201930 of $33,477 to further develop subjects, will this program continue? If so, why? Can CSU afford this at a time when belts are being tightened everywhere else? Multiplying this cost out, even if we CSU only TOlified 1500 subjects, the cost appears to be $50 million.
Wendy De Luca
We can tinker with the subject and course offerings, but we still need to get the admissions process working effectively to get the students. how will this be addressed?
Is the University looking at or considering pausing the external review project reporting to reduce external expenditure - or is this not an option moving forward?
Sorry. Too much faith in "marketing". There has been no lack of "marketing" over the past 15 years. There has been a structural change in the higher ed environment affecting potential student choices - so fewer students from high density population centres choose to come here. (None in some courses coming from Sydney when they used to be our majority enrolments) WE need a structural change at Fed Govt policy level around caps at major city Universities if we are to survive.
Reputation for universities is earned through research and publications as well as teaching. When the funding to RIPPLE was removed, six professorial staff left SOTE over a short time frame. That will leave a research void that will become visible about now and over the next year or so. When looking at research "brownie points" earned in the Faculty, will the removal of funds and the subsequent reduction of publications with six senior staff no longer present, be taken into account? How will research, particularly in education, be supported going forward?
CSU stopped offering Honours degrees in education a while ago. Has the impact of this decision been considered? A degree with Hons may just be the difference between a couple of candidates
is using Open Universities to promote micro subjects or courses not considered to be an external consultation cost?
I notice the admissions question.. we all have anecdotal cases of students in recent years getting enrolment rejection letters. When we wanted them! How many rejection letters were sent out for the 2019 admissions process?? There must be apolicy where NO rejection letters are sent to students unless this is checked with the School and/or course director. "twas a debacle.
Losing some courses might also mean losing some campuses like Dubbo (no offence Dubbo). It is looking like it is going to be some seismic activity in the near future. Should we be worried?
John G offered to respond to all questions, this one appears to have been skipped. The TOL Proof of Concept Report provides interesting reading. From the information provided it seems that student satisfaction improved 5-10%, progress rates remained similar, withdrawal rates increased (6-8%), grade distributions remained the same (no statistically significant difference), students liked the flexible assessment dates and shorter turnaround times (no surprise), academics struggled with the shorter assignment marking turnaround (no surprise and a significant concern). Given these results, and a price tag in 201930 of $33,477 to further develop subjects, will this program continue? If so, why? Can CSU afford this at a time when belts are being tightened everywhere else? Multiplying this cost out, based on these numbers, even if CSU only TOlified 1500 subjects, the cost appears to be $50 million.
I have to go get ready for a class, thank you for this meeting
Thanks Lucie, a good summary.
Rapid development might be possible if we didn't have Blackboard as our platform. Just saying
No problem - apologies for skipping earlier was trying to bunch and read
Thank You John & John this has been great