This week I will start with a message from Eddie:
A number of rumours and ripples have occurred since the last Course-A-ware circulations through my expressing matters in a manner that allowed various interpretatons, so hopefully this will now provide clarity. With regards to the my request that people redirect moodle queries to Garry Edmonds rather than their Ed Dev’s, I didn’t mean that all those that go to the ITD helpdesk should also come to Garry. The ITD Helpdesk (LMS Helpline, x3396) is and will continue to be the fully functional first point of call for technical and how-to issues involving Moodle, Grademark, Turnitin and Adobe Connect. The elements to go to Garry are those that are pedagogical questions outside of the unit review process, or where specific training is needed as we anticipate the school based Ed Dev’s being too busy to undertake these activities in addition to the unit reviews.
The next item is that the QUA review team has grown to include Jenni Ayres, Judy McDonald and Penny Purvis. Along with Ellen, they will quality check the QUA reviews received prior to forwarding through to the Educational Developers. This QUA review team is also responsible for reviewing re-drafted unit learning outcomes that are submitted as part of the QUA process. Ellen has continued to meet with Educational Designers and schools at their request to work through any AQF queries.
As you would be aware, two senior representatives from the AQF Council – Lyndal Groom (Executive Director) and Victor Korobacz (Director Policy) – have been on campus today . Three sessions were scheduled. One was specifically for General Staff, although many academics also attended this session. In fact, the Lewis Lecture theatre was almost full. The second session was provided for the Educational Designers/Developers and then the afternoon session was for staff involved in the approvals and processes. The opportunity for people to direct explicit questions around the AQF to Lyndal and Vic was particularly useful. There will be more information following on from these sessions sent out early next week. In the meantime we are concerned that one of Lyndal’s comments may be being taken out of context. Please note her statement that people can do more or less whatever they want provided they can make the academic case needs to be set within the context of the University’s policies and procedures and the AQF.
The final item is an update from Georgie:
The draft work flow of the Audit has now been developed (see attachment). Basically, there are three main work flows to the auditing process:
- Resource Centre for Copyright and resource related legal issues
- Courseware Quality Unit Manager for AQF issues
- Associate Director Learning Environments for enhancements associated with all other standards (those other than above)
We are aiming to get all amended Unit Outcomes developed, and any Copyright and resource issues resolved within a two week period (from time of discussion with the Education Developer/Designer). Once these are completed, the audit activity report will be sent to the Resource centre and the Courseware Quality Managers for quality checking. At the time of submitting the action plan all other necessary enhancements related to the audit standards will be allocated by the Associate Director Learning Environments (Georgie) to the appropriate people within the LIH for further action. These enhancements will be dealt with on a priority basis, with global enhancements being given first priority, followed by school based and discipline based enhancements.
As there are many Units being audited, Educational Designers/Developers will be under a bit of pressure to get them through the audit process. So please note that once the two week period has lapsed, to keep the audit process on track, we may send out emails reminding some Unit Coordinators to submit revised Outcomes, copyright and resource related tasks.
Josie Fisher for the Courseware Enhancement Project