TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Transitions Steering Committee Discussion Paper
October 2009
Liz Smith
Director, Transition Project
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 2
Purpose........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Project Background.................................................................................................................................... 2
Key terms .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Relationships and overlaps with other CSU projects............................................................................ 6
Program overview and organizational benefits...................................................................................... 7
Project Boundaries ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Existing situation......................................................................................................................................... 9
Discussion of sample Project Deliverables .......................................................................................... 11
Appendix 1: Pathways to CSU ............................................................................................................... 19
Appendix 2: Possible Models for CSU Foundation Programs........................................................... 20
1
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Introduction
‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’
‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.
‘I don’t much care where,’ said Alice.
‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.
‘- - so long as I get SOMEWHERE,’ Alice added as an explanation.
‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, ‘if you only walk long enough.’
From Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Initiatives around the Student Experience and Transition are not new to CSU. Many staff have walked
the transition path for some time and examples of programs can be found across nearly every area of
the University. However, such programs often occur in isolation, are not well understood by other areas
of the University and in some cases duplicate effort. Many identified gaps also exist in the area
transition. This project seeks to develop a ‘One University’ approach to transition and associated
activities, while ensuring that these activities remain aligned with the strategic direction of the
University.
Purpose
This paper has been prepared for the Transitions Steering Committee in order to determine ‘which way
to go’. While reading this paper, consider the potential breadth of the project, the focus within the
project and the possible deliverables. Questions are posed throughout for the Committee to consider.
Project Background
The Transition project comes under the umbrella of the Student Experience Program (SEP) which is a
derivative of the initial Work Process Improvement ‘Opportunity Identification’ report delivered in
2007.
The Senior Executive Committee (SEC) requested David Bedwell to commence scoping the student
experience in 2008. After consultation, and feedback, the scoping phase focused on the quality of
engagement across 4 key relationships (Figure 1).
2
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Relationship D
Relationship A
Students
Faculty &
Schools
Relationship B
Relationship C
Divisions
Figure 1 - Key relationships to be considered in the Student Experience
In September 2008 a report on the Student Experience at CSU was presented to the SEC. This report
reviewed these four relationships and made recommendations for the formation of a program with
projects linked to it. The report also highlighted that there was no ‘One University’ approach to any
relationship, nor were students mentioned in the CSU Strategy.
A program and budget were subsequently approved by the SEC. The overarching program is to:•
Build the ‘Student Experience’ into strategy, planning and continuous improvement
•
Develop a ‘Student Experience Scorecard’ to prove its success
•
Lay foundations toward an integrated organisational approach to the Student Lifecycle via a
variety of projects all linked through Participation, Success, and Engagement
Several projects commenced in early 2009 including the Student Service Centre, University
Advancement and Customer Relationship Management System.
3
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
In March 2009, the Vice Chancellors Forum considered the post Bradley Review environment and what
our students will look like in 2012 and beyond. It discussed how CSU could increase the participation
and success of our students. Student transition issues were also raised within the CSU Degree Project
and formed the basis of the initial recommendation #19.
The Transition Project was born from this discussion. Although the project does not yet have formal
funding, Liz Smith was appointed Project Director in September 2009 using the original program budget.
The SEP and its project managers are now in place and are represented in Figure 2. The program and its
projects are timed to end in July 2012.
Student
Experience
Program
(David
Bedwell)
Student
Services
Centre
Transition
CRM
(Liz Smith)
(Phil Sefton)
(Vicki Pitcher)
Final Year
Experience
(Liz Smith)
Advancement
(Michelle
Fawkes/Hedy
Bryant)
Figure 2: Student Experience Program Structure
Key terms
The transition project aims to assist students to participate and succeed at university life. While many
associate transition with high school leavers commencing university, at CSU we recognize the diversity
of student cohorts and the many transitions associated with University study. Figure 3 below illustrates
the key components of the Transition project at CSU: student pathways, orientation, curriculum and
student support with the goals of increased participation and success.
4
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Figure 3: Transition project at CSU
5
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Pathways – Refers to the variety of ways that our prospective students (as diverse as they are) might
gain entry to a course at CSU. Examples of current pathways are direct UAC entry, articulation through
TAFE , Koori Access program (KAP) or recognition of prior learning. It is possible for pathways to extend
back to secondary school level e.g. the AVID program run at Murray School of Education. Mapping and
understanding of these pathways is essential to developing approaches to increase participation and to
ensure students entering through various pathways are catered for upon entry to CSU. It has been
suggested that a key component of this transition project may be the development of a foundation
program. (A consolidated guide to CSU pathways is attached as Appendix 1)
Foundation – Foundation programs occur pre-enrolment and prepare students for the transition to
tertiary study. Such programs may concentrate on generic skills e.g. academic writing, or specific
discipline content that is assumed knowledge upon course commencement e.g. physics or chemistry, or
a combination of both. Foundation programs often assure guaranteed entry into a University course and
in some instances provide credit into these courses. Foundation programs sometimes lead to the award
of a University Certificate or Diploma. Developing a foundation program will assist in increasing pathway
options for CSU study and hence opportunities for participation and success. (Possible models for
foundation programs at CSU are included in Appendix 2).
Orientation –orientation occurs post enrollment and assists transition by introducing students to key
information and support available at University. Orientation may occur face to face, online or utilizing a
combination of the two.
Curriculum – the term curriculum is used in this project in the broadest sense i.e. “all the planned
learning opportunities offered by the organisation to learners, and the experiences learners encounter
when the curriculum is implemented “(Print, 1993)
Student Support –support for students in transition is ideally addressed within the curriculum, but also
through integrated support programs such as orientation, counselling, accommodation and financial and
learning support. From a student perspective, support should be ‘just in time’ and ‘just for me’.
Relationships and overlaps with other CSU projects
Student Services Centre – the creation of the SSC as the first point of student contact will be
reflected in all Transition programs and initiatives. The SSC will be kept appraised on all
Transition programs to ensure accurate information is available for students.
6
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Advancement – the advancement project is clearly linked to the transition from final year
student to alumni. As this project provides the means to contact and communicate with distinct
cohorts of students, final year initiatives which build on first year experiences will have
dependencies on this project.
Final Year Experience project – the final year experience project was developed to facilitate the
transition between final year and alumni. Student surveys, focus groups, staff discussion and
literature reviews have unearthed numerous potential improvement opportunities at CSU
within the final year. A summary and recommendations will be produced in a separate report;
however the general finding is that final year initiatives and programs really depend on an
appropriate foundation and culture being developed from the first point of engagement with
students i.e. the first year experience. Once a cohort has commenced with newly established
practices and programs, this group would be the ideal one to pilot final year programs with.
Customer Relationship Management –many potential deliverables in the Transitions project
involve the appropriate identification and communication with students during various stages of
the student lifecycle. Appropriate tracking of student activity and engagement with the
University also provides valuable information that can be used to enhance student transitions.
Dependencies exists between the CRM and transition project if deliverables around the ability to
track student engagement, react and communicate appropriately with students are to be
achieved
CSU Degree Initiative – strong overlaps exist between the CSU Degree Initiative Project and
Transition. As both projects seek to use curriculum renewal as the strategy to effect change, it
makes sense that the pilot courses developed as examples of best practice that effort also be
directed into those courses to ensure they have been designed with appropriate transition
pedagogy in mind.
Indigenous Education Strategy – strong overlaps and dependencies exist between the
Transition project and the ideals of the Indigenous Education Strategy in terms of Indigenous
student recruitment, pathways and support.
Program overview and organizational benefits
The Transition project aims to increase access opportunities for our very diverse student cohorts and
ensure that our students are successful and autonomous adult learners by the start of their second year
of study. The project will support the Student Experience Program’s broader aims of increasing student
participation, success and engagement and relevant aspects of the next University Strategic plan.
7
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
The following points are presented for consideration by the committee. These are in effect draft
outcomes that the project intends to achieve from three key perspectives. These outcomes guide the
development of the project’s deliverables.
The success of the transition project from a student perspective will be seen by:
Increased access and pathways to CSU courses
Relevant Orientation programs available regardless of location or study mode
Increased engagement with the University and with fellow students
Improved curriculum that supports first year transition
Improved first year support for particular student cohorts
Increased awareness of support available
Increased timely and relevant communication from the university regarding transition issues
The success of the transition project from a staff perspective will be seen by:
Increased knowledge of and engagement with issues affecting students in transition
Greater understanding of transition practices across the University
Increased confidence in designing curriculum that incorporates transition pedagogy
Increased access to resources and information regarding transition issues
The success of the transition project from an organisational perspective will be seen by:
A ‘One University’ approach to student Transition and related activities Increased student
participation in access programs
Increased retention rates
Appropriately designed first year curriculum
Availability of resources and information to support transition issues
Increased partnerships with other organisations
Support services that are responsive and appropriate to student needs
Improved student engagement of first year students (reflected in enhanced AUSSE results)
Enhanced partnerships between faculty and support staff
Practice that is based on organizational strategy and policy
An improved student centered culture
Increased ability to market the University based on student experience
8
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Question for the Steering Committee: Are these the outcomes we wish to achieve within the
Transition project?
Project Boundaries
In theory, most of the activities across CSU could be classified as coming under the Transition umbrella
in some way. In order to develop deliverables that can realistically be delivered by this project, it is
important to clarify the boundaries of this project in relation to the student life cycle, and the
organisation’s strategic priorities. If we assume the student life cycle is broken into the following high
level components, there are clearly transition issues within each stage.
Aspiration → Pre enrolment → Orientation → First Year → Course progression → Final Year → Alumni
Issues around alumni are being addressed by the Advancement project within the SEP, so it is
unnecessary to include the final stage of the life cycle within the Transition project. As explained earlier
in the Project Overlaps and Relationships section, final year initiatives, while most important and
beneficial to both the student and the organization, depend on a solid first year foundation and an
appropriate culture established from the first year.
Question for the Steering Committee: Which stages of the student life cycle should this project
cover?
Existing situation
Although many sound and successful transition related programs and practices exists across CSU, no
coherent, organization wide approach to Transition exists. There are also significant gaps and
improvement opportunities.
Based on the student life cycle, a series of sample deliverables has been developed to prompt
discussion. Some of the sample deliverables extend on work already underway within the University, or
add a new focus to current practice. Other deliverables suggest new ways of addressing student
transition needs.
9
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
10
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Questions for the Steering Committee: Are there other potential deliverables that are appropriate for the
Transitions project? How many deliverables and quality outcomes can reasonably be achieved within the
project timeframe?
In order to refine thinking around the potential outcomes for the Transitions project, each sample deliverable is now
discussed in more detail, providing context and examples where appropriate.
Discussion of sample Project Deliverables
A1 – Research needs & experiences of low SES University students
What: This deliverable is a collaborative Proposal to the Competitive Grants Program of Australian Learning &
Teaching Council.
Project Title: Students from Low SES Backgrounds Engaging with University Education.
Who: University of Ballarat (lead institution), Deakin University; Australian Catholic University; LaTrobe University,
and Charles Sturt University
Where: All campuses/locations
Why: The project is based on the rationale that universities are likely to be alien environments for students from low
SES backgrounds. There is unlikely to have been exposure to university through family or peer group experience and
any knowledge of university is likely to have been obtained through secondary or distant sources such as teachers,
health care professionals etc. There is a strong sense that university culture is reflective of middle class values and as
such sets up young people from low SES backgrounds in an environment that is difficult for them to understand and
that is populated by signals that are just as difficult for them to interpret.
The project will explore the experiences of students from low SES backgrounds from within a small group of rural
and regional universities utilising a students-as-researcher approach. There will be an accompanying structured
process of academic support within each institution. This experiential model will assist in forming new
understandings of the needs of students from low SES backgrounds and lead to new approaches to learning and
teaching that are informed by the experiences of these students within universities.
A2 – document and market the pathway options available to all cohorts of students
What: a consolidated summary of entry options available to students for use in marketing, student and staff
information and to identify gaps and potential improvements
Who: for all staff and students, parents, careers advisors
Where: available online
Why: current and accurate information is essential in allowing prospective students to make informed and timely
decisions regarding entry to CSU. Allows staff to gauge where gaps and opportunities exist
11
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
A3 – Develop programs to encourage and support successful participation of equity groups (esp.
low SES) at CSU (esp. in high end courses)
What: May involve programs that partner with schools to target and tutor potential students (eg. AVID), provision of
summer schools to build aspirations and change attitudes, or courses that allow students to complete uni subjects
while in secondary school (e2).
Who: equity groups, esp low SES
Where: all campuses as appropriate
Why: Bradley targets are 20% of low SES with degrees by 2020. New funding targeted at low SES schools/uni
partnerships. Early contact assists realistic expectations, preparation for uni with potential positive effect on
retention. Current gap in CSU offerings, students are currently referred to other institutions for foundation studies.
Required to remain competitive in a deregulated environment.
B1 – Develop CSU Entry/Preparation program
What: establish an appropriate entry/preparation program for students who may not have the ability or confidence
to demonstrate academic proficiency for entry to CSU. Such a program would provide an alternate entry pathway
for students and guarantee enrolment in specified courses on successful completion with the possibility of a credit
package. University Certificates or Diplomas could be awarded on successful completion. Could be 6-12 months
delivered face to face either at CSU or at partner sites. The foundation program could include an English strand for
International students and could also replace KAP as the Indigenous entry pathway, with KAP becoming an
orientation/familiarization session rather than an assessment tool. Such a foundation program could sit on its own,
or become part of a CSU College concept as many other institutions have done. Preparation sessions could also be
offered for various cohorts of concern e.g. TAFE to Uni weekend preparation courses, DE prep etc.
Who: Relevant to all students but could specifically address Indigenous, low SES, low UAI, TAFE, International, ESL
Where: Initially run as a face to face program with a view to providing a DE option down the track.
Why: widens participation opportunities, better prepares students, assists CSU to position itself to meet the Bradley
targets and lifting of caps in 2012, and helps address concerns of declining academic entry standards. Helps address
attrition rates, allows CSU to access significant pool of DEEWR funding (indigenous enabling scholarships), and would
assist meet KPI in Indigenous Education Strategy (3% Indig enrolment by 2015).
e.g. Wollongong College Australia http://www.wuc.edu.au/domestic/uow/index.html
Canberra College: http://www.canberrac.act.edu.au/home
UWS College - http://www.uwscollege.edu.au/site/index.cfm
Monash College: http://www.monash.edu/monashcollege/about/pathway/
Newcastle: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/students/foundation-studies/
2 potential models of CSU foundation programs are included in Appendix 2
12
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
B2 – Establish partnerships with regional ELICOS providers to support CSU students
What: establish partnerships that would allow International students to undertake English studies in a regional (CSU)
location prior to commencing a CSU course rather than having to study in metropolitan areas.
Who: Relevant to International students
Where: Initially Albury campus, with a view to extending to other regional/campus cities
Why: provides a more seamless experience for International students, with greater ability to provide high level
student support and input. Less risk to the University of ‘losing’ students to the metropolitan areas. Aligns with
AUQA Good Practice Principles
B3 – investigate partnerships with other providers for Indigenous enabling/pathway programs
What: Economies of scale exist in the preparation and promotion of University pathways for Indigenous students.
Partnerships with complementary institutions can assist in marketing and preparing students who may not ordinarily
consider CSU enrolment due to geographical location or lack of required course choice. UNSW have expressed
interest in this type of collaboration
Who: Prospective Indigenous students
Where: All campuses
Why: Indigenous enrolments currently represent only 1.3% of CSU enrolments. The KPI in the Indigenous Education
Strategy is 3% by 2015. Indigenous students have extremely high attrition rates at CSU (65% on campus, 75% DE)
with a high % of KAP students withdrawing or at risk. Appropriate enabling programs and pathways can assist to
address such high rates.
C1 - Develop vision, aims and guiding principles for CSU Orientation using a ‘one University’
approach
What: Create principles on which all orientation programs would be based and measured on, and create a
consistent, strategic approach to the first messages and engagement we have with our students. This should feed
into 2012 Strategic Plan
Who: This deliverable would affect all student cohorts
Where: All campuses, all locations
Why: Currently no organizational policy or strategy exists to guide planning for Orientation. Programs are often
historically based and do not necessarily align with the strategic goals of the University. High level vision, strategy
and policy would allow more consistent and measurable orientation programs to be developed and implemented
and ensure availability of such programs to all students regardless of location or study mode. Aligns with best
practice i.e. institution wide approach to student experience initiatives.
e.g. QUT http://www.otq.qut.edu.au/guidelines/protocols_orienttrans.pdf
13
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
C2 - Review and redevelop Orientation program using above approach and ensuring needs of
different cohorts are met
What: builds on the outcome of the previous activity and develops a coordinated and outcomes based orientation
program for CSU.
Who: This deliverable would affect all student cohorts
Where: All campuses/locations of students
Why: On campus O week resource intensive, duplicates effort, unskilled presenters, information overload and
disengaging for students. DE perception of missing out, lack of awareness of services & support available. Need to
set the foundation for future final year programs. System changes e.g. MSI need to be addressed in current
materials. Broad identified issues include:
Lack of comprehensive CSU orientation for students enrolled at partner institutions
Inconsistency of programs across campuses
Failing to meet needs of on campus students living off campus and/or mature aged students
Lack of an academic focus during O week
Information overload during O Week
Full week is too long and unnecessary
Unwillingness of faculties to engage with the orientation process
Lack of a comprehensive program for DE students and post grad students
Perceived induction into a ‘drug and drink’ on campus culture
Lack of guiding policy or strategy relating to student orientation
These issues have been informed by:
Student evaluations during O Week, student surveys and focus groups, site visits and QA audits of partners, input by
academic staff to Academic senate, academic research papers and focus groups.
Examples can be seen at:
JCU http://cms.jcu.edu.au/stu_induct/intro/JCUPRD_038116
UOW http://getstarted.uow.edu.au/orientation/index.html
UNE http://blog.une.edu.au/studentexperience/tag/orientation/
D1 – Develop guiding principles for the effective design of transition year curriculum
What: Development of principles to inform curriculum renewal ensuring attention to transition and first year
experience issues. Much information exists in this area as a result of an ALTC Felllowship on Transition Pedagogy
http://www.altcexchange.edu.au/group/first-year-experience-and-curriculum-design.
Who: Academic and relevant support staff would develop the principles for the benefit of staff involved in first year
curriculum design
Where: All campuses/all locations
Why: The first year curriculum should explicitly assist transition academically and socially into learning in higher
education. Good first year curriculum design aids transition from a student’s previous educational experience to the
14
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
nature of learning in higher education and their new discipline as part of their lifelong learning journey. (Kift, 2009
http://www.fyecd2009.qut.edu.au/resources/transition.jsp) The development of guiding principles for first year
curriculum design would facilitate curriculum renewal that is supportive of social inclusion and addresses the diverse
nature of our student cohorts.
D2 – embed transition principles of course design and assessment into pilot courses from each
faculty
What: Redesign pilot courses/subjects using principles developed above, and embed enhanced orientation and
student support practices
Who: Pilot course in each faculty (possibly same courses as CSU Degree Initiative)
Where: Dependant on courses identified
Why: Responsibility to support students in transition and acknowledge the diversity they bring. Adds to richness of
experience for all students. Potential to address attrition and progress rates and increase AUSSE, SEQ and CEQ
scores. Recognised best practice and well supported by extensive literature and research
D3 – Situate learning skills staff within the faculties with a concentration of resources on
preparatory/first year (at CSU) student support
What: Similar to the ED model, co-location of LSA/faculty staff allows for the building of important faculty/divisional
partnerships and would allow a project model to develop concentrating on co development of curriculum. This
model also allows Learning Skills Advisors to feed important information back to the Faculty regarding ‘pressure
points’ in relation to particular assessment items and skill sets. Face to face appointments would continue with first
year students only within the Learning Commons or a similar central location. LSA brief redefined to concentrate on
the preparation to first year stage of student life cycle.
Who: Would relate to Prep – to first year students
Where: All campuses
Why: Aligns with current best practice, AUQA Good Practice Principles, is a KPI in the Standards Paper, concentrates
resources at pressure points, addresses concerns regarding LSAs ‘dragging students over the line’ issue. Support
exists from both the faculties and the learning skills staff for this model.
D4 – Develop a liaison /case management model between faculty and support staff to ensure
support is targeted and ‘just in time’ for students.
What: Development of stronger partnerships and model of contact and communication between faculty and student
support staff in order to more effectively support students. Similar to Student Admin Faculty Liaison Officers,
student support officers would have direct links and responsibilities to faculties and act as ‘case manager’ when
required in order to support ‘at risk students’.
Who: Student support staff/course coordinators/directors
Where: All campuses
15
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Why: Various levels of collaboration between student support staff and the faculties exist across the University.
Because of this fragmented approach it can sometimes be difficult to ensure students in most need receive the
support they require. (For example, a student suffering psychosis who had met with the Faculty was referred to the
counseling service for an immediate assessment. Support was not available until 3 weeks later). This is not a
reflection on the quality of the support provided, however, a stronger liaison role between the faculty and support
divisions may have been able to provide a more accurate sense of the urgency of this matter and resulted in the
support that was required being made available. The potential introduction of Course Directors form the faculty
perspective will make appropriate points of contacts more accessible.
D5 – Introduce an academic focus within the residential support program
What: Managers of the residences have recognized the need for a more academic culture. A pilot program
conducted several years ago demonstrated the potential of such an initiative but at that stage was not underpinned
by appropriate organisational support. This deliverable would ensure the program is documented with sound aims
and objectives including the establishment of a culture that supports and encourages good study habits.
Who: Students living in CSU residences
Where: All campuses with residential accommodation
Why: On completion of the new residences in Orange and Wagga in March 2010, CSU will have the potential for
2800 students living on campus. Residential Advisors (RAs) and their support program provide a key form of support
for students living on campus and are one of the first and most lasting contacts students will make with CSU. It is
critical that this engagement is one that the University wishes to encourage.
D6 – Develop appropriate accommodation/study spaces for research students
What: The physical accommodation and study needs of research are different to those of younger students. For
those visiting campus, they may need to bring family with them and require apartment style accommodation, as well
as secure and appropriate places to study/research.
Who: Research and higher degree students
Where: All campuses with research/HD students
Why: Supports successful participation, progress rates. Can be utilized for marketing purposes. Enhances student
experience
D7 – Develop peer mentor/tutor programs
What: Peer mentoring programs have been shown to be potentially effective in enhancing student engagement and
persistence. Programs may involve general peer mentoring for social support/engagement, subject specific content
tutoring e.g. third years helping first years (study centres), or the use of student mentors in student support areas
such as learning skills and library. Programs would target areas of need/high risk and critical time frames and
subjects and may occur via DE or on campus.
Who: dependant on program target
Where: all campuses
Why: Peer to peer support shown to be effective, students requesting this type of support (e.g. Thurgoona focus
groups),
16
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
D8 – develop university wide ‘students at risk’ program
What: University wide, systematic approach to the identification and follow up support strategies for ‘at risk
students. May involve proactive referral to individual group workshops, remedial support and/or intervention and
appropriate and just in time communication ‘pushed out’ to students
Who: May involve cohorts of students eg. ATSI, NESB, those articulating from TAFE, or individuals students identified
as their course progresses (ee.g. failure to submit forst assignment, attend class etc)
Where: Dependant on location of students
Why: It is evident from university progress and attrition rates that some cohorts are more at risk of failure than
other (eg. Indigenous students, NESB, those with lower numeracy entry level). It is also well known that the first six
week of university present a high risk time for attrition for students in transition. Students studying by DE are also
particularly vulnerable due to perceived isolation and lack of support. Other individual factors such as failure to
submit first assignments, non attendance at class or low literacy levels may also indicate ‘at risk’ criteria. While
various programs exist to support such students, no organization wide approach exists to the identification and
support of these students and the comprehensive evaluation of such practices.
E1 – development of academic professional development program for transition issues
What: Professional development program on issues around transition pedagogy such as assessment, designing for
diversity and engagement
Who: Academic staff and relevant general staff (e.g. EDs, LSAs information literacy librarians)
Where: All campuses
Why: Staff will require professional development in order to implement systemic change
E2 – development of a project communication plan
What: Overarching project plan detailing how the project will communicate with key stakeholders
Who: All staff and students
Where: All campuses/locations
Why: Essential to keep CSU informed. Aligns with best practice
E3 – development of a transition web site
What: Create a web site with staff and student sections that house all transition related resources, showcase of good
practice and avenues of communication. Would likely overlap with orientation deliverables
Who: For all students and staff
Where: Online
Why: ongoing repository of resources and information for staff, professional development purposes, assist in
communication strategy, information and resources for students, useful for marketing purposes.
e.g. Melbourne http://www.services.unimelb.edu.au/transition/transition/index.html
Macquarie http://www.mq.edu.au/transition/
Griffith http://www.griffith.edu.au/new-students
17
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
E4 - development of staff awareness program
What: Overarching Professional development program for general and academic staff that disseminates work of the
project as well as existing practice across the University.
Who: All staff
Where: All campuses
Why: encourage community of practice, networking, sharing or resources and ideas, avoids duplication of effort,
creates shared vision and ‘buy in’
E5 - provide support for any change or organizational restructuring that may be necessary
What: Change management support as required depending on potential impact of project deliverables
Who: All relevant staff
Where: All campuses
Why: To support staff to adjust to any necessary change and promote a culture of transition issues as everyone’s
business and responsibility
Question for the Steering Committee: What should the deliverables of the Transition project be? Do any
deliverables have critical deadlines?
18
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Appendix 1: Pathways to CSU
19
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
Appendix 2: Possible Models for CSU Foundation Programs
Model A
University Certificate in Education/Arts/Science/Business
•
This is a ‘local award’ that already has been approved by UCPC and Academic senate
•
Duration is 2 sessions/8 subjects (different duration would need senate approval of a new
certificate course)
•
Initially delivered on campus and aimed at recent school leavers who don't meet entry
standards. Broadened to DE delivery in stage II
•
Students would complete 4 ‘generic subjects’ and 4 elective subjects. Generic subjects
would be developed as 8 credit point subjects. Elective subjects would be drawn from
existing subjects within the course that the students wish to enter. Additional support for
these subjects would form part of the overall course support
•
Students would receive credit for the elective subjects they complete and on successful
course completion be guaranteed entry into the identified course (Some faculties may
award credit for all subjects allowing direct entry into second year.)
•
Students would be CGS funded
•
This model could also be taught by TAFE and/or used within the DET
An example course structure is provided below:
Notes: 1. This model could also award a Diploma rather than a Certificate. Although CSU have
previously decided against further Diplomas, they have the advantage of being nationally recognised
under the AQF and accepted by other institutions . Diplomas may be more attractive to students
given the transfer possibilities to other Unis
20
TRANSITIONS STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER
October 26, 2009
2. AQF/Gov are currently ‘silent’ on funding of ‘local awards ’ i.e. Certificates. Funding may present
an issue if tested.
Model B
An alternative foundation option is a University Preparation program that provides no credit or
faculty electives, but concentrates purely on developing the academic literacies required for
successful University study (e.g. University Certificate in Foundation Studies). The advantage of this
type of model is the ability to have complete control over the curriculum and learning environment
in which students operate. A sense of a ‘unified cohort’ may be more achievable without the options
of electives and students may arguably be better prepared for their first year of a University degree.
Successful completion could lead to a guaranteed offer or some credit depending on Faculties. This
model obviously lengthens a University degree and may act as a disincentive to some, however for
those students whose entry qualifications are significantly under the accepted CSU level, this may
provide an attractive pathway to University study where none currently exists. Progression issues
would also be minimised using this model. An example courses structure is included below.
University Certificate in Foundation Studies
Session I
Session II
Introduction to University Studies
Language and Literacy
Academic Writing
Indigenous Studies
Communication and Group Skills
Foundation Mathematics
Writing and Research Skills
Negotiated project
As with any foundation studies model, in order for the program to succeed, Faculties would need to
be clear on the acceptable entry level to their degree programs.
Questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Certificate or Diploma?
Would either model suit your faculty? Alternative/s?
Would either cause progression/subject availability issues?
What is the appropriate course length/subject load?
How much credit (if any) could be granted on successful completion in your Faculty?
Who should ‘own’ the course?
Would successful completion guarantee entry?
What could the program be marketed as? Some universities are developing similar
programs as ‘Year 13’
21