Academic Policy Committee Minutes
16 March 2001 (Item 155)
155. GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
The Chair
informed members that the President of Academic Council has approved a
recommendation from the Chair of APC to: (a) move the deadline for Divisional
reports to Academic Council on plans to implement graduate attributes
to 31 December 2001; and that (b) the requirement for Divisions to address
the issues of multiple pathways and appropriate standards be made coincident
with the 31 December 2001 deadline for the mapping process itself. Council
will be asked to endorse this action at its next meeting.
Professor Bailey raised three issues:
a. Broadly
speaking there appears to be two options available for the definition
of standards:
- First
model: raise standards from Part I to the third/fourth year. Taking
grammatical errors as an example, one would expect more occurrences
in the first rather than the third or fourth year. That is; what is
meant by "good written communication skills" will vary from
year to year. This model is, however, problematic because it requires
a careful definition of "good" appropriate from year to year
and course to course. This would entail considerable work.
- Alternative
model: keep standards constant but vary the difficulty of the task from
year to year. In this case, the difficulty of the task is increased
with the year but the expectations remain the same.
Top
b. Graduate
attribute units
Although
some courses may be able to deliver on most/all of the graduate attributes
within their course structure, other courses may find the attributes
hard to fit in. The Chair suggested that in this case the course may
need to rely on units from outside their own offerings, although the
issue of relevance would need to be addressed here. The completion of
the major and associated graduate attribute unit(s) would be required
for students to graduate. This approach may well be undesirable and
should be seen as a last option.
c. Sub-hurdles
The issue of sub-hurdles within the assessment of a unit and any amendments
required to the Code of Practice on Assessment was mentioned. The Code
will need to address the situation in which a student has achieved content
objectives but not the graduate attribute objectives.
Members raised several concerns. Dr Bennett questioned the wording of
some graduate attributes, and the importance of the chosen attributes
amongst those sought by employers. Dr Petersen asked about their applicability
to higher research degrees. Dr Petersen also pointed out that the expectations
regarding the graduate attributes may vary across courses. In response,
the Chair noted that the exercise should be carried out in courses in
a way that is appropriate to them. He also indicated that the exercise
of mapping courses against the attributes of graduates should assist in
the identification of gaps or shortcomings in courses which in turn could
assist in the improvement of courses as part of the 2003 academic planning
round.
Taken from:
http://wwwadmin.murdoch.edu.au/admin/cttees/apc/2001/010316/010316mn.html
Top
|
