Reflection and Planning form

Many assignments are submitted and returned by EASTS (Electronic Assignment Submission Tracking System). The percentage of assignments that have been returned on time is shown. Assignments are considered to be on time if returned within 15 working days from the due date or date of submission – whatever is later.

A percentage below 95% requires your comment in the reflection.

If an assignment is submitted late, the system still expects a return within 15 working days after the date of submission. So even if the assignment is received so late that you would not deem it appropriate to mark, you should at least send a notification through EASTS acknowledging the assignment has been received, but no mark will be given.

Most subjects have an outline. Outlines should be published at least 14 days before the start of the session. The Dashboard indicates if this happened.

At the end of every session each offering is surveyed. Responses are considered positive (agree or strongly agree) or not. For each offering, the percentage of all responses that are positive is calculated (this is abbreviated as PPR). A PPR below 65% requires your comment in the reflection and may trigger an action item. A PPR above 85% is excellent. As with all surveys, it is important to note the number of people who did the survey (via the response rate and the number of completed survey). You may wish to mention the sample size in your commentary. Survey results are available in the dashboard when they are available in the tool – https://p8.courseval.net/etw/ets/et.asp?nxappid=CS2&nxmid=start. You can also access answers to qualitative questions from that tool (but only for your own cohorts).

Very small responses (less than 5) are automatically omitted for students’ privacy. General surveys close one week after the end of the exam period. Survey results are available in CourseEval the day that grades are released to students. The data dashboard should have the data shortly after this.

Workplace learning subjects have a different survey with a much later closing date.

Sessions where there is very little time between the end of the exam period and when grades are released (especially ’90 session) might have some delay for this information. Subject Evaluation data is already available to staff and students via the SuES reports portal.

Progress rate equals the number of passing grades (HS-PS, SY) divided by the number of substantive grades (HD-FL, FW, AW, SY, US). The university aims for progress rates to be at least 80%. The dashboard shows the indicative progress rate based on currently information in Banner (the database of student transcripts). Any cohorts with a progress rate below this require your comment in the reflection and may trigger an action item. To help interpret progress, the number of enrolments and the percentage of grades reported are also shown. The percentage of grades reported is the number of substantive grades divided by the total enrolment. If this percentage is low, then the final progress rate could change from the current indicative figure. In particular, if the percentage of grades reported is less than 80% then the data is coloured warning you that there could be a significant change. Discipline knowledge of conversion rates for non-substantive grades (AE, AA, SX, GP, TA) can be used as a guide in these cases.

The history of progress rates is in the Grades History tab. This historical record of progress rates can assist with reflecting on the current rate. For instance: perhaps progress has been improving (although still not above 80%). The improvement should be celebrated.

The dashboard shows grades from Banner as they are reported to the government. For the current session, the dashboard shows exactly what is in Banner (and updates regularly). So BEFORE grades are transferred from Interact2 / Grade Centre the distribution shows mostly TA grades (and a few AW or SX or GP). AFTER grades are transferred it should show the distribution of the class. There can be slight differences in the distributions from Grade Centre and Banner – Banner is the main authority (since Grade Centre can miss SX/AW/GP and have false students). For historical grades, the distributions are the grades that were reported to the government sometime after the end of the session. In order to inform your commentary, it is recommended to also look at grade history.

Also see Multi-session or Year-long subjects.

Examples include student email feedback, during session survey results, and feedback in class.

Please select "No" if no other sources or "Yes" if the other sources of data were used.

This question gives you the opportunity to include data that gives a more detailed view than the dashboard above. For example, you could quote the text response questions from the Subject Evaluation Survey (SuES). If the SuES has a low response rate, then given results of a Harvard 1-minute from mid-session could give a wider view of the students’ opinions on the subject.

You can also include feedback received from students in any form, anecdotal evidence in the form of emails or verbal comments also provides information about how your subject has gone.

Celebrate the successes. Identify and explain areas of improvement (this will help with planning below). In particular, you should give an explanation to any metric flagged with red on the main dashboard screen.

To assist, you could review the time series data via the other tabs in the dashboard (for instance the metric might be improving). Also, pay attention to the sample size and response rate. If not directly visible, hovering over the data point gives the greater detail. You should also talk to other members of the teaching team (if there is a team). Make sure you refer to the student voice (eg SES or sources you have included in Q1) (cf HESF 5.3.5). The response here gives the context to the action items below.

The purpose is to give an honest reflection on the subject – both what went well (the university wants to celebrate with you), and what needs to improve (we need to think carefully about the root cause of the issues and make plans to deal with them). If plans are already in place to address issues, please mention that.

See these Samples of quality reflections to guide your thinking about writing your own reflections.

This question only appears for WPL subjects. If present, enter your answer in a comment box. This question verifies that moderation of all aspects of moderation takes place for WPL.

This question ensures that the following HESF standards 2.1.1 and 5.4.1 are met:

2. Learning Environment

2.1 Facilities and Infrastructure

1. Facilities, including facilities where external placements are undertaken, are fit for their educational and research purposes and accommodate the numbers and educational and research activities of the students and staff who use them.

5. Institutional Quality Assurance

5.4 Delivery with Other Parties

1. Work-integrated learning, placements, other community-based learning and collaborative research training arrangements are quality assured, including assurance of the quality of supervision of student experiences.

Examples of the types of responses for this question

• Placements are undertaken external to the University. Most contact with supervisors and facilities is via phone or email. Supervisors are verified as being Board approved, and having appropriate endorsement.
• Supervising teacher and ULO work closely with teacher education student whilst on practicum. Final report is based on these key players and the QA processes they undertake collaboratively.
• All sites that students attend must be accredited. New sites are contacted prior to the student starting and sent our supervisors handbooks of activities that the students will complete during placement. They are also sent the subject outline that contains the subject outcomes. These resources are also part of our MOU with our main placement provider. When time and location permit, site visits are completed, for example within Wagga Wagga. Student progression and conduct are discussed in random phone audits.
• The school visits attached to this subject are observations only. Schools can make comments on the attendance sheets. There was a letter to schools explaining the visits. Schools were encouraged to contact the Subject Convenor, WPL Liaison officers or teaching staff if any problems (all numbers/emails provided). There was one incident with a student – the school did not what him to return after 4 weeks – this was followed up by the WPL Liaison person.
• This WPL component of this subject is managed by the WPL team who have responsibility for overseeing all aspects of supervision, placement facilities and quality assurance of placement experiences.
• The PEU was in charge of placing students in schools and assuring those placement facilities were adequate.
  I communicated with a number of students throughout their placement and all student feedback indicated that their experience was good and facilities were adequate.
• Supervisor and student feedback is always sought post-placement and is recorded and reviewed; no issues were identified.

Subject quality is the sum of many factors. The lecturer’s role is one factor, but the physical and virtual rooms are other factors. So this question includes Divisions of Facility Management (DFM) and Information Technology (DIT). It gives them feedback on what is going well and needs improvement in their sphere.

If there is anything urgent, please contact the appropriate service desk (DIT or the Division of Learning and Teaching). Information will be sent to the appropriate areas for changes and improvement.

Purpose of the question

• Academic misconduct undermines our ability to correctly determine if a student has truly learned the content of a subject and is ultimately fit for their profession. Thus considering misconduct and how we can reduce it is vital to maintaining academic quality. This question allows the subject teaching staff and School Assessment Committee to identify any actions and strategies that may improve the academic integrity of the subject and reduce academic misconduct in the future.
• The question's intent is not to double up (or repeat) the reporting of academic misconduct (this is captured, investigated and penalties determined in confidence elsewhere). Rather the question is meant to cover the whole subject and the whole spectrum of academic integrity queries and concerns that may come to the teaching team’s attention during the session.

Caveat

• At the time of filling in this form, many incidents that have been reported may still be under investigation, and hence the outcome is not known. However, reflecting on what has been found and what can be proactively done about it is still appropriate.
• Examples of suspected incidents or risks
• Cases have been reported for misconduct or poor academic practice. Were some assessments more impacted than others?
• The teaching staff has noticed an assessment item has not been changed in a long time and feels this can increase the opportunities and risk of or is concerned that a search on the internet of the assignment title brings up cheating sites or past papers.
• Students/staff have alerted the Convenor that the assessment is very similar to one in another subject and this may encourage self-plagiarism.
• You have noticed very poor academic practice that borders on plagiarism in this session’s cohort.
• Turnitin scores are concerning in one particular assignment (very high or very low – beware though Turnitin measures similarity NOT misconduct).
• Many students are not paraphrasing or referencing correctly, hence marking is difficult plus students would lose marks.
• Incomplete or absent referencing of organisational and/or professional protocols and SOPs.
• Increased risk of collusion when more than one student undertakes WPL in the same facility or when students are assessed on placement.
• Misrepresentation of actions undertaken in the workplace such as patient assessments and treatment interventions implemented in patients’ notes.
• Falsifying attendance records to show more hours than actually completed and/or falsifying the supervisor’s signature.
• Arranging someone else to undertake a placement on their behalf
• Students have reported social media has been used to ‘share’ assignment answers.
• An internet site with a copy of your assignment is advertising contract cheating (this usually is evidence that contract cheating has already occurred).
• A screenshot of an exam question found on Chegg showed that students were trying to get outside help during the exam.
• Student solutions in the exam are very close to the sample answers.
• Document properties are unusual (eg name of the author does not match the person; editing time is very low).

Good practices to avoid issues in the future

• Overall a mix of strategies over a course is most effective – choosing what is most appropriate for a given subject.
• Update assessments, for example, include minor changes such as amending the wording of a task, adjusting the weighting of sections or including a new reference or definition or timeframe may help identify cheating.
• Any assessment questions that have been identified as compromised (eg available on an internet site) should not be reused.
• Include academic skills links in the modules.
• Provide guidance to understand that protocols and SOPs should be referenced/acknowledged

This table gives all subject coordinators a voice in this form (not just the convenor). This is the place for subject coordinators to add optional further comments to the form. Once created, the coordinator can edit or delete the comments. These comments allow coordinators to speak about issues local to their cohort(s), or talk about issues that the convenor has not mentioned elsewhere.

You could ask a subject coordinator to add a comment here rather than adding their message as part of the convenor’s response to earlier questions.

You can create as many action items for your subject as needed, based on your reflections. These action items provide ways to access resources (like educational designers) and workload.

The action items are the responsibility of the convenor. If the SAC requires work to be completed, the form must be returned to the convenor with a request for the action item to be created.

When active, the Add Action Item button will be blue.

Action items are split into different categories based on what stage of the subject is impacted (design, outline or delivery). Since these are linked, you may need to create several actions to cover all aspects of a change. Also, if you have staged dates, do a separate item for each time period.

Click on the required action type and drop-down lists will appear for the relevant assistance to be requested.

Categories

The categories are:

CDAP: "This action item is a request to start the process of modifying the subject information stored in the CDAP academic item.

Subject Outline: this includes assessment tasks (including the schedule, task description, or marking criteria and standards), subject teaching schedule, textbook or sample exams.

Subject Materials/Delivery: this includes resources in Interact 2, editing or creating videos, e-assessment, adding an explanation of resources to help commencing students, academic literacy module, updating lectures/tutorials, etc.

Other: this includes the timetable.

For each non-CDAP/CASIMS action item you have the following fields:

• By Whom? (compulsory): Enter in one or more people who will do the task. It is best to enter an actual person by starting to type in their email address or name and then selecting them from the drop-down list that appears. If the actual person is unclear, then type in free text and press enter (for example “Convenor”). Make sure you press enter. The name/role will appear in a grey box once it has been registered. Actual people will show the email address used for reminders. Free text will not have emails.
• By When? (compulsory): Select a date when the item will be completed by.

Reminders will be automatically sent based on this date. Also, the system keeps track of overdue items. So pick a time frame that is realistic and achievable.

• Additional workload (optional): if you have a request for workload in addition to the normal allowances, you can make the request here.
• Resources Required (optional): We should not work alone. Rather, we should improve the quality of subjects as a team. The Divisions of the university can help. To do so, simply ask for help by ticking the appropriate boxes. If you click any of the top-level boxes (Library etc) then details of the services they provide are shown. You can pick as many as you need. You are encouraged to read the descriptions so you can see what services are available – perhaps you were not aware of some.
  

  If you do select some resources required and the action item is approved, then the relevant people in the Division(s) will contact the people in the ‘by whom’ field to organise details. If too many resources are requested, the work may need to be prioritised (by the Head of School and the Division).

• Issue: identify the issue that the action item is trying to address. This shows to those supporting you what the overall aim of the change is.
• Action (compulsory): Type in a description of what you plan to do. The first few words will appear in the condensed version of the action item table. So make the first few words a summary of the whole action.
• Once all complete the “Add Action Item” button should become active. Press the button to save.

You can edit or delete existing “New” action items by pressing the buttons in the action item table.

Action items must be approved before they will be actioned. Reports are run by the relevant areas/Divisions once the action items are approved to identify what work is needed for each subject.

Once action items are approved, they change state to OPEN or CLOSED. Open items can be closed (by a convenor) by pressing the “Close” button. A text comment explaining what you did and the impact on the subject is required to complete the closure. Action items should be closed before their due date.

If an update to CDAP academic item is required for this subject then select CDAP from the drop-down menu. The information requested is what is needed to start the update process (i.e. includes who will do the update, why, what fields they plan to change and what is the first session to run the updated subject). If unsure of who will actually do the updates in CDAP for 'Key contact for editing the subject profile' enter “Convenor” and for reviewer “Head Of School” or "Course Director".

The form also gets you to draft the cover page of the CDAP change by selecting what fields you plan to change and what the rationale is.

A CDAP action item (if approved) only initiates the faculty process for a CDAP change. It will still go through normal processes (namely approval by Associate Dean Academic and then later school board etc). There is no guarantee that it will be implemented. However, the creation of the action item and review by the School Quality Committee gives early feedback on a proposed CDAP change: initial support, or early helpful revision, or rejection before it gets too far.