ACADEMIC BOARD TE TAUMATA

A meeting of the Academic Board will be held on Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 1:00pm in the Hunter Council Chamber.

AGENDA PART A

1 WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS AND APOLOGIES

2 PART B OF THE AGENDA To consider: requests from members to transfer items from Part B to Part A of the agenda.

Items for approval that are not transferred to Part A will be considered approved.

3 ORAL REPORTS To receive: oral reports from:

• Vice-Chancellor • Director, Digital Solutions • Tumu Ahurei (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Māori) • Vice-Provost (Academic) • Vice-Provost (Research)

4 PROVOST’S FORUM: RESEARCH AND INTEGRITY POLICY To discuss: the Vice-Provost Research will discuss the Research and AB21/22 Integrity Policy.

Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand AB21/22a

5 CUAP ROUND TWO PROPOSALS AB21/23 To approve: 1. For submission to CUAP, the 2 proposals listed below: 2. The request for access to Student Allowances and the Student Loan Scheme for new programmes and associated double-degree programmes. Faculty:

FHSS BA/9 AB21/23a Amending the Italian major in the BA.

FEng BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b Change the name of the Computer Graphics major

and subsequent amendments.

6 ACADEMIC PROGRAMME REVIEWS AB21/24

To receive: the report and implementation plan for the academic AB21/24a programme review of the Accounting and Commercial Law AB21/24b programme. To advise: the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of the Wellington School of Business and Government on any academic matters arising from the review.

7 RESOLUTION CONCERNING EXCLUSION OF NON-MEMBERS To resolve: that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely agenda items 11 and 12.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is

excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of Reason for passing this resolution in Ground(s) under section 48(1) each matter to be relation to each matter for the passing of this resolution considered The public conduct of each item below would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under the sections of the OIA identified below. 11 Minutes of the s9(2)(b)(ii) and s9(2)(i)) LGOIMA s48(1)(a)(ii) previous meeting held on 20 April 12 EP nomination s9(2)(a) LGOIMA s48(1)(d)

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 or section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are set out above.

PART B

8 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING To confirm: the minutes of the Academic Board meeting held on 20 April 2020 (Nos. 19.21-33.21).

9 REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE AB21/25 To approve: the 9 non-CUAP proposals summarised in the report for 4 May and 1 June; and To note: the two proposals approved by the Committee at its 4 May and 1 June meetings.

10 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENTS ANNUAL REPORT AB21/26

To receive: The Library Developments Annual Report 2020.

MEMBERS ONLY (PART C)

The next meeting will be held at 1:00pm on Tuesday, 20 July 2021 in the Hunter Council Chamber.

AB21/22

TO Academic Board

FROM Margaret Hyland, Vice-Provost Research

DATE June 9, 2021

SUBJECT Provost’s Forum: Research Policy Framework Review Project 2021

Executive Summary As part of the development of the University’s Academic Integrity framework and in response to changes in the national and international context affecting research, the Vice-Provost (Research) has commissioned a project to review and update the University’s research policy framework.

Initial discussions about this project were had at the University Research Committee’s October 2020 meeting where it was agreed that a new code of research conduct be developed to replace the existing Research Policy and form part of the overarching Academic Integrity framework of THW- VUW. The new code will follow best practice in research governance nationally and, on the recommendation of URC, ideally be adapted from the Royal Society Te Apārangi’s recently released Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Accompanying this memo are two documents, for the consideration of Academic Board and discussion during the Provost’s Forum at the June 22 meeting: • THW-VUW Research Policy Framework Review Project 2021 Overview; and, • A copy of the Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand (the Charter).

Recommendation

1. That Academic Board consider and discuss the two documents provided under cover of this memo noting that these discussions form part of a consultation process that will continue throughout 2021 and beyond if necessary. 2. That Academic Board in particular consider the following questions raised in the attached Project 2021 Overview document: a) Does Academic Board support URC’s recommendation that the Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand be used as the basis of the University’s new code/policy for research conduct? b) Are there any parts of the Charter that are not suitable for the THW-VUW context? c) Does the Charter omit areas of research conduct which should be included in the University’s new research conduct code/policy? d) Does the preliminary project roadmap provide sufficient time for consultation and have all key stakeholders been captured?

AB21/22

AB21/22

THW-VUW Research Policy Framework Review Project 2021 Overview May 2021

Background Over the past decade or so increasing attention is being paid around the world to matters of research integrity, the responsible conduct of research, and the need to minimise research malpractice. There is general agreement that clear guidelines and ongoing professional development for researchers are necessary and that research institutions and funders have significant roles to play. In many jurisdictions, expectations around high research standards are set out in documents developed and sanctioned by national funding agencies and referenced in research related compliance frameworks including those related to Human and Animal Research Ethics and Biosecurity/GMO regulations1.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Royal Society Te Apārangi along with seven other organisations began work in 2018 on a collective national approach to ensuring that high standards of research practice are upheld and that expectations for researchers, their home institutions and funders are communicated more formally and transparently2. The outcome of this work is the Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand which ‘is intended as a resource that organisations will draw on when they review, refine and implement their own policies and procedures’3.

In addition to the trends outlined briefly above, there has been a growing focus in many parts of the world on the need to protect sensitive and/or commercially valuable research, to ensure that researchers and research organisations comply with updated national and international legal and compliance regimes (e.g export controls, UN sanctions), and to assess and mitigate the wide range of risks associated with foreign interference.

These issues are very much part of the landscape in Aotearoa New Zealand today noting that both the government and the research and innovation sector are committed to upholding the principles of open science and the free exchange of ideas that underpin so much of public sector research including that undertaken by university-based researchers.

For universities, one way to balance the demands of these often competing claims is to approach the increasingly complicated national and international compliance, risk management and responsible research conduct issues is through the lens of research integrity and fit for purpose institutional research policy frameworks.

THW-VUW Context The University stated its intention to develop an academic integrity strategy as a result of a self- review linked to the 2015 Academic Audit. Various measures have been undertaken since then, the

1 See for example the recently revised Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018; and the UK’s The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, 2019 https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/the-concordat-for-research- integrity.aspx. 2 The seven other organisations taking part were: Science New Zealand; Universities New Zealand; Independent Research Association New Zealand; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (now New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology); Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; and the Chief Science Advisor Forum. 3 Additonal background and links to the Charter are available at https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/research- practice/research-charter/ AB21/22 most recent being a 2018 stocktake of academic integrity across the University. The intention of the stocktake was to develop a holistic understanding of matters relating to academic integrity, including both research integrity and integrity in relation to teaching and learning for both staff and students. In November 2018, a Provost Group workshop was held followed by a Provost Forum on the topic at Academic Board in July 2019. Scoping and benchmarking work was undertaken, and an Academic Integrity steering group formed in November 2020.

The Research Policy Framework Review Project outlined below, therefore, forms one pillar of the broader THW-VUW Academic Integrity framework which is designed to encompass responsible research practice as well as integrity in teaching and learning. This holistic approach is intended to foster a shared understanding of our values and expectations in these fundamental areas of the University’s activities as well as allowing us to group together in a single, easy to find and navigate location all the relevant documents, forms and resources4.

Academic Integrity framework (draft) Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington is committed to excellence, respect, and honesty in learning, teaching and research and to ethical and responsible professional conduct. Academic integrity, including responsible research practices, is at the core of this commitment and requires all members of the University community to uphold integrity as a personal, academic and professional responsibility.

With, and as, tangata whenua, we value te Tiriti o Waitangi, rangatiratanga (leadership), Manaakitanga (the fostering of knowledge), kaitiakitanga (responsibility for and guardianship of knowledge), whai mātauranga (intellectual curiosity), whanaungatanga (collaboration and collectiveness) and akoranga (collective responsibility for learning).

Me tika. Me rite. Me pono. Te be correct, to be prepared, and to be ethical.

Academic Integrity Policy

require all members of the University community to uphold integrity as a personal, academic and professional responsibility. Improving Academic Practice Responsible Research Code of Conduct Procedures (Educative Approach) (has policy status in University policy framework)

Academic Misconduct Procedures Human Ethics Policy & Procedures

Animal Ethics Policy & Procedures

Additional Policies, Procedures &

Guidelines as determined by the

Research Policy Framework Review

Student Conduct Statute

Staff Conduct Policy

4 The materials will be available to all members of the University community via a website, Sharepoint site, or other easily accessible location.

2 AB21/22

Taking into account the national and international contexts briefly outlined above, the research workstream of the Academic Integrity framework has determined that there is a need for the University to consider how it can best promote ‘the conduct of research to the highest standards of ethics and integrity’5 as well as to more transparently set out our own expectations and responsibilities related to the conduct and management of research.

Unlike most New Zealand universities, Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington does not have an institutional policy or code of practice for the conduct of research and the majority of our existing research policy framework is out of date and/or out of step with national and international best practice.

In response to this misalignment with national and international best practice, initial discussions were had at the University Research Committee’s October 2020 meeting where it was agreed that a draft code of research conduct or similar policy based on sections of the Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand be developed to replace the existing Research Policy as part of the Academic Integrity framework of THW-VUW. In the first instance, the relevant section of the Charter are • The Preamble • Values and principles • Expectations 1-176

It was recommended that this preliminary draft code/policy be used in consultations with stakeholders and be accompanied by an outline of the new and revised policies, procedures and guidelines that would eventually form the new research policy framework.

Questions for consideration a) Does Academic Board support URC’s recommendation that the Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand be used as the basis of the University’s new code/policy for research conduct? b) Are there any parts of the Charter that are not suitable for the THW-VUW context or require significant revision? c) Does the Charter omit any areas of research conduct which should be included in the University’s new research conduct code/policy?

A placeholder name for the new draft document on which we will consult is the Responsible Research Code of Conduct (the Code). A preliminary project roadmap with timelines is provided below. Roadmap timelines are indicative only and will be updated as the project progresses. Given the nature and scope of the review project, it is important that sufficient time is allowed for consultation with stakeholders and feedback to be considered and the draft documentation iterated before we move to the Formal Consultation Period. Implications for the non-research components of the University’s policy framework must also be taken into account.

5 Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand Preamble. 6 Expections for ‘Funders contributions’ lie outside the scope of the University’s policy framework and will not be included.

3 AB21/22

Preliminary Roadmap: THW-VUW Research Policy Framework Review Project 2021 Activity 2021 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Project Plan to URC & AI Working Group Form Working Group and develop/iterate draft policy and identify, prioritise and draft where possible the additional policy framework documents needed Consult with FRCs, FMCs, SLT, Academic Board, CSUs Finalise draft Code & high priority draft procedures. Seek approval in Principle from VC Submit to Policy Office and Formal Consultation Period Revise Code following consultation and submit for final VC approval (note procedures may be revised and approved by VPR following approval of Policy)

Questions for consideration d) Does the preliminary project roadmap provide sufficient time for consultation and have all key stakeholders been captured?

Benchmarking As we undertake the review and update of the THW-VUW research policy framework, it may be useful to consider how our national peers have approached their policies governing the responsible conduct of research. For each university, only the primary/foundational research policy document is included. All universities have additional research policies, procedures and guidelines that deal with narrower areas of focus or which expand on elements included in the primary policy document.

NZ University Research Policy/Code of Conduct Documents7 University Governing Document Areas Included Approach to Misconduct Auckland Code of Conduct for Defines ‘research’ and Staff Research Research (currently under ‘researcher’; Misconduct Policy review) Principles; Overview of Responsibilities which are then spelled out in more detail in following section;

7 The material in this table was compiled in 2020. As our project progresses, we will check for any new/updated materials.

4 AB21/22

University Governing Document Areas Included Approach to Misconduct Integrity; Adherence to Regulations; Research Methods; Research Records- Retention of Data- Ownership of Data- Confidential and Private Data; Research Findings; Authorship and Acknowledgement; Peer Review; Conflict of Interest; Supervision of Research Trainees; Collaboration Across Institutions; Societal Considerations AUT Code of Conduct for Vision & Purpose8; Code sets out minimal Research Definitions of standards to be met. ‘research’, Any breach of the ‘researcher’, ‘research Code or any Research misconduct’; Misconduct may Principles & Standards constitute for Research Conduct ‘misconduct’ or adopted from the ‘serious misconduct’ Royal Society Code of and dealt with under Professional the Discipline Statute, Standards the General Academic Statute and the Employee Discipline Policy. Canterbury Research Conduct Policy Guiding Principles on: Serious Misconduct High Standards; defined in Research Limitations on Conduct Policy and Research; No managed in Manipulation of accordance with other Results; Publicly policies and Funded Research; regulations (eg Staff Commercial Research; Code of Conduct; Ethical & Socially & Student Code of Culturally Responsible Conduct; Employee Research9; Human Disciplinary Policy;

8 Incorporates Treaty of Waitangi principles of partnership, protection and participation. Adopted from the Royal Society’s Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology and the Humanities 2019 https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/who-we-are/our-rules-and-codes/code-of-professional-standards-and-ethics/code-of- professional-standards-and-ethics-in-science-technology-and-the-humanities 9 This includes sections on research funding not being accepted where there are issues with problematic funders, problematic research, problematic conditions on research; disputes around research funding.

5 AB21/22

University Governing Document Areas Included Approach to Misconduct Ethics; Animal Ethics; Academic Integrity Consultation with Guidance for Staff and Māori; Safety and Students; Discipline Biosafety; Retention Regulations; Academic of Data; Expectations Integrity and Breach for Publications and of Instructions Other Research Regulations Outputs; Serious Misconduct in Research; The Role of Supervisors in Postgraduate Student Research; Authorisation of Contracts and Other Formal Agreements by Staff Lincoln Research Policy 2020 Purpose; Defines No mention of (Includes elements found Research using PBRF; research misconduct. in more traditional Codes Outcomes policy seeks Reference in Research of Research Conduct but to achieve; Policy Policy to Code of elements that do not align itself-Research Conduct (staff). with VUW’s new policy Activity-expectations framework—eg. for staff; Conduct of management and support Research-Integrity structures) (based on Australian Code); Academic Freedom; Responsibilities of University; Management of Research; Support of Research Massey Code of Responsible Purpose & Included in great Research Conduct Background; Principles detail within Appendix of Research Integrity; 2 of the Code. The Responsibilities of the entire document Institution; seems to be heavily Responsibilities of based on the older Researchers; Research version of the Misconduct including Australian Code. categories of non- compliant research practices; Principles for dealing with Breaches of Research Conduct and Research Misconduct. Appendix 1 with guidance on

6 AB21/22

University Governing Document Areas Included Approach to Misconduct responsible research conduct in Research Practice; Research Supervision; Research Records and Data; Dissemination, Publication & Authorship; Peer Review; Conflict of Interest; Collaborative Research; Public Communication; Research Involving Identified Communities. Appendix 2: Procedures for dealing with Minor Breaches and Research Misconduct (7 pages). And Procedures for dealing with allegations related to externally funded research (including applications) Otago Responsible Practice in General Procedure for Dealing Research-Code of Conduct considerations10; with Allegations of Publication and Misconduct in Authorship; Retention Research; also an and Disposal of Ethical Behaviour Research Data; Role of Policy; Fraud Policy Supervisors in and Procedure Graduate Student Research; Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest. Waikato NA. Section of Staff Code Small section on of Conduct that applies to research and the conduct of research. scholarship conduct Additional expectations expectations in the and what we would deem Staff Code of Conduct procedures and guidelines and then misconduct are included in the is later covered as ‘Handbook on Research contravention of any and Outside Professional staff obligations. Activities’ as well as

10 Covers a wide range of expections for reseachers some of which are elaborated on in other sections of the document.

7 AB21/22

University Governing Document Areas Included Approach to Misconduct policies etc on specific areas of research activity.

8 Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand

AB21/22a Ki te kotahi te kākaho ka whati, ki te kāpuia e kore e whati Alone we can be broken. Standing together, we are invincible – Kīngi Tāwhiao

Preamble This research charter promotes the conduct of research to the highest standards of ethics and integrity 1. The traditional Māori process of inquiry, discovery, invention to produce high-quality research findings. It recognises the importance, value and validity of multiple research and innovation in the development of new knowledge, new ways 1 of knowing, being and doing, from old knowledge. practices (including kaupapa Māori, Rangahau and Pacific research practice), multiple knowledge systems 2. In this context, te reo me ōna tikanga means the language, culture 2 (including mātauranga Māori), and te reo me ōna tikanga . and protocols of Māori. 3. The research community includes funders, research organisations, It is a resource which any organisation or person can adopt or apply, in full or in part. individual researchers and scholars, research trainees and supporting contributors such as technicians. 4. It is recognised that the relationship between Māori and the Crown Values and principles will continue to evolve, and consequentially the values and principles 3 and responsibilities on researchers, researchers and funders set out The ethical and professional values and principles relevant to the research community must be interpreted in this charter may also need to change. within a general framework that recognises human and civil rights, the principles of free enquiry and an open 5. Researchers means those people who undertake research or society, and obligations arising from the Treaty of Waitangi4. These principles and values share a common ground: scholarly activities; the people undertaking rangahau, are normally processes for knowledge discovery, exploration and sharing between researchers, participants and communities described as kairangahau. in Aotearoa New Zealand that are respectful of people and their rights. 6. Funders means agencies that invest in research, but do not normally undertake research themselves. The charter is applicable to only Researchers5, research organisations and funders6 are encouraged to regard the values and principles those parts of the agency’s activities that relate to selection of 7 recipients, and the establishment, management and completion as working together to guide their activities , as is appropriate to their specific research context. These are: of contractual or granting arrangements. 7. Activities means research or scholarly activities, which may Tika8,9 | Mana | Whakapapa | Manaakitanga | Pūkenga | Kaitiakitanga include associated professional activities such as disseminating Justice | Duty of care | Beneficence | Non-maleficence | Respect | Integrity results to others. 8. Māori words have meanings that are highly context-dependent. In this context tika means acting with integrity and respecting the legitimate interests of relevant communities; mana means balancing Expectations one’s own authority and the rights held by others; whakapapa acknowledges the importance of relationships with relevant Responsible and high-quality research practice 12. Correctly attribute those who have contributed communities; manaakitanga means acting with care and respecting occurs when researchers act well, supported and to, or funded the research, and appropriately diverse values and communities; pūkenga means acting with rigour; encouraged by research organisations and funders acknowledge relevant work by others; and kaitiakitanga means acting with responsibility and ensuring resources are managed appropriately. In this context, beneficence that share a commitment to world-class professional 13. Contribute to the public interest by being mindful means acting to benefit other people, contributing to broad standards and to supporting the public interest. of their obligations to society, reflecting on what concepts of well-being, and balancing benefits against risks and In such a context, researchers should: costs; non-maleficence means not causing harm intentionally, and the consequences of their research might be, ensuring that the risks of harm are not outweighed by the expected 1. Behave with honesty and professionalism, and disseminating results and findings as soon as it benefits, justice requires that people are treated fairly and equitably, undertake their research diligently and carefully is appropriate to do so, and engaging responsibly including fairly distributing the benefits and burdens of research to 14 individuals and communities; respect for persons means respecting using appropriate methods; with the public . an individual’s right to make choices and hold views, and to take actions based on their own values and beliefs; integrity refers to the 2. Actively seek research excellence, demonstrate Research organisations contribute further trustworthiness of research due to the soundness of its methods the highest standards of behaviour and foster when they: and the honesty and accuracy of its presentation; duty of care a culture of integrity;10 describes the obligations that a reasonable person owes to others 14. Establish and maintain good governance and who may be affected by their acts or omissions. 3. Be respectful to other people, including acting management practices15 to support and encourage 9. The Māori values were developed by a Royal Society Te Apārangi with cultural intelligence11 and intellectual rigour working group comprising Professor Tahu Kukutai, Associate responsible research practice; Professor Maui Hudson, Associate Professor Maria Bargh, Associate (pūkenga), and appreciating diverse values and Professor Hēmi Whaanga, Dr Hinemoa Elder, Dr Dan Hikuroa, Marino communities (manaakitanga); 15. Provide appropriate amenities, support systems, Tahi and Moe Milne for inclusion in the Society’s Code of Professional and ongoing training, education or mentoring for Standards and Ethics. They are proposed by the Charter working 4. Endeavour to identify and engage with researchers and others in relevant roles within group to be directly incorporated into the Charter. stakeholders and/or affected communities their auspices; 10. This includes through supporting colleagues, responding positively (whakapapa), recognise their rights (mana), to requests for mentoring advice, and providing opportunity to those and respect their interests (tika), including 16. Provide for the safe and secure storage, who are early in their research career. intergenerational interests; management and access for future use of research 11. Cultural intelligence means the capability to relate, respect and work artefacts, data, samples and records; effectively across cultures. 5. Where practicable, partner with mana whenua, 12. Including applying the three Rs (Replacement, Reduction and 16 tangata whenua, iwi, hapū or other communities 17. Use good practice processes to receive Refinement) in their activities involving animals as subjects. for who there are reasonably foreseeable direct concerns or complaints about matters of 13. Practice standards include code of practice and differ between potentially poor research conduct17, investigate disciplines; in scientific disciplines appropriate standards should impacts, which may include using appropriate ensure robust and reproducible research findings. methodologies such as kaupapa Māori, rangahau and determine such matters, and undertake 18 14. The principles of responsible engagement are set out in or collaborative pathways that are co-designed any necessary follow-through actions . the public engagement guidelines of Royal Society Te Apārangi and co-delivered with those partners; (https://royalsociety.org.nz/public-engagement-guidelines/). Funders contribute further when they: 15. Including through affirmative actions that support equity, diversity 6. Meet all ethical and regulatory requirements12, and inclusion. 18. Use good practice processes19 to provide and implement relevant practice standards13; 16. Good practice processes provide advice to those with concerns, assurance that, if the requested funding is are visible, supportive of the welfare of all parties involved, timely, 7. Safeguard the health, safety, well-being and provided and properly managed, sufficiently effective, robust, procedurally fair, observe natural justice, separate rights of people involved in or affected by the knowledgeable people will conduct the research investigative and decision making roles, and, for potentially serious matters, normally use independently appointed lay members in the conduct of their research; and ethical and regulatory requirements will decision bodies that both determine the matter and decide any 8. Responsibly manage artefacts, data, samples be met; follow through actions to protect the public interest. and records they have created or collected; 17. Poor research conduct can include but is not limited to plagiarism, 19. Champion equity, diversity and inclusion, seeking fabrication and falsification. 9. Be mindful of the environmental effects of their to increase the participation and recognition 18. In cases of serious misconduct, good practice is that actions to research and research practices (kaitiakitanga); of under-represented groups in the research protect the public interest (which may include correcting the record, community of Aotearoa New Zealand; informing research funders, and making disclosures to protect 10. Disclose and manage conflicts of interest; innocent co-workers and inform potential future employers) are 20. Share good practice, and if a public funder, seek decided prior to determining any employment or student enrolment 11. Only claim competence commensurate with to harmonise requirements with other public consequences for the person or persons responsible for the their expertise, knowledge and skills; misconduct. funders to reduce the burden on funding 19. Good practice processes usually include the use of independent recipients and applicants. peer review.

Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand | September 2020 v1.0

AB21/23

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON ACADEMIC BOARD

AGENDA ITEM 5

Date 8 June 2021

Proposer Professor Stuart Brock, Vice-Provost (Academic)

DOCUMENT RECORD

Reference AB21/23

Title CUAP Round One Proposals

Author (memorandum) Claire Williams, Senior Academic Quality Advisor

Date 8 June 2021

The Academic Board is asked to approve:

1. for submission to CUAP, the two proposals; and 2. the request for access to Student Allowances and the Student Loan Scheme for new programme and associated double-degree programmes

AB21/23

AB21/23

MEMORANDUM

TO Academic Board

FROM Claire Williams, Senior Academic Quality Advisor

DATE 8 June 2021

SUBJECT CUAP Round One Proposals

Executive summary

The CUAP proposals summarised below are submitted for the consideration and approval of the Academic Board. If the Board supports the proposals, they will be submitted for consideration by CUAP in Round Two, which commences on 1 August 2021.

Background

The CUAP proposals have been considered by Academic Committee at the 1 June 2021 meeting and their academic quality has been endorsed.

1. BA/9: amend the Italian major in the BA to reduce points value The aim of the proposal is to reduce the number of courses necessary to complete the Italian major and make it more attractive to students, while maintaining the integrity and viability of the subject as a full pathway of study from undergraduate to postgraduate level at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, one of only two universities to offer it in New Zealand.

Unlike other modern languages in the School of Languages and Cultures it is not taught in New Zealand schools. This means that the programme cannot count on school leavers to enrol directly in 200-level courses. With few exceptions all students who want to study Italian must start ab initio, making their pathway to a full major especially demanding. Teaching staff have worked on a curriculum that ensures that the 140-point major delivers on the graduate outcomes for the Italian major by consolidating key learning in ITAL 101, 102, 201, 202 and 301.

2. BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3: change Computer Graphics major in the BSc to Computer Graphics and Games This proposal seeks to change the name of the Computer Graphics major and expand the coverage of the existing Computer Graphics major in the BSc to provide a broader focus on computer games in addition to computer graphics. In recent AB21/23 years, the computer games industry has grown to become the dominant employment market for graduates in computer graphics and many students doing computer graphics are very interested in computer games. However, the current Computer Graphics major in the BSc has not addressed this connection with games in the past and has focused more on core graphics techniques, algorithms, and programming.

The proposal addresses this disconnect between the current Computer Graphics major and demand from industry and students by expanding the scope of the major to explicitly include Computer Games and modifying the set of courses in the major to explicitly address both graphics and games and the close connection between them. The proposal has been constructed in coordination with the School of Design Innovation which is planning to introduce a complementary major focusing on Game Design, and the two programmes are intended to work together with points of contact at each year, with co-taught courses and opportunities for students in both majors to take courses from the complementary programme. We expect the broader coverage of the major to increase its attractiveness to new students, and to draw more students into the programme.

Recommendation

The Academic Board is asked to approve:

1. for submission to CUAP, the two proposals 2. the request for access to Student Allowances and the Student Loan Scheme for new programme and associated double-degree programmes [Faculty Ref No.] AB21/23a

Programme amendment cover sheet

Proposal name Amend the Italian major in the BA to reduce points value Proposer Sally Hill

Faculty Humanities and Social Sciences

Summary Amending Italian major to reduce point value from 180 to 120 points

Year 2021 Reference BA/9 CONSULTATION Person consulted Summary and reference Academic Office [email protected] Feedback incorporated Associate Dean Joost de Bruin Feedback incorporated CAD Irina Elgort Feedback incorporated Course Admin. Teresa Schischka Feedback incorporated Faculty Admin. Noeleen Williamson Feedback incorporated Library Marisa King No feedback PAMI Heather Kirkwood n/a

Toihuarewa Meegan Hall Supportive of proposal

School Admin. Lisa Lowe Feedback incorporated Student Finance Stephanie Hunter n/a Students Via FAC Proposal supported

APPROVAL Authority Date Recorded by Head of School Nicola Gilmour 25/02/2021 Director of Teaching and Equity and approved by the SLC LT&E committee as per SLC process Fac. Acad. Cttee. Joost de Bruin 11/3/2021 Catherine Townsend

Faculty Board Sarah Leggott 25/3/2021 Catherine Townsend

Acad. Committee Academic Committee 03/06/2021 Pam Green Academic Board CUAP

Add more rows if more than one faculty needs to approve the proposal.

[Faculty Ref No.] AB21/23a

Programme amendment

Proposal name Amend the Italian major in the BA to reduce points value Faculty Humanities and Social Sciences CUAP Category CUAP category 6.1.6

A1 Purpose 1. To amend the Italian major in the BA from a 180-point to a 140-point major. 2. To make a consequential change to the Modern Language Studies major in the BA. 3. To make a consequential change to the entry requirements for the BA(Hons) in Italian.

A2 Justification The aim of the proposal is to reduce the number of courses necessary to complete the Italian major and make it more attractive to students, while maintaining the integrity and viability of the subject as a full pathway of study from undergraduate to postgraduate level at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, one of only two universities to offer it in New Zealand.

Italian is currently offered as a 180-point major. For ab initio students this includes 6 language courses, albeit with significant cultural components, each of which is a prerequisite for the next: ITAL101, ITAL102, ITAL201, ITAL202, ITAL301, ITAL302; and 3 culture courses taught in English: FHSS110 or LANG101; 20 further points from ITAL200-299 or LANG201-299; and 20 further points from ITAL300-399.

Even though Italian has been taught at this university since 1923, unlike other modern languages in the School of Languages and Cultures it is not taught in New Zealand schools. This makes its presence at the University all the more distinctive and important but means that the programme cannot count on school leavers to enrol directly in 200-level courses. With few exceptions all students who want to study Italian must start ab initio, making their pathway to a full major especially demanding. While many students who enrol in 100-level Italian are enthusiastic about the subject (ITAL courses receive consistently outstanding student feedback) and often express an interest in pursuing a full major, many cannot fit nine courses into their degrees while also fulfilling the requirements of another BA major. A leaner 140-point major should facilitate more students opting for Italian as a second major in the BA.

The proposed changes to the major will also make it more sustainable to offer with constrained staffing resources. Teaching staff have worked on a curriculum that ensures that the 140-point major delivers on the graduate outcomes for the Italian major by consolidating key learning in ITAL 101, 102, 201, 202 and 301. ITAL 301 will be offered every year, with a second 300-level course offered from ITAL 302-399 or LANG 300-399 (courses which also cater for other European and Latin American languages).

A3 Proposed amendments Proposed amendments to the major subject requirements for major in Italian (Calendar 2021, p. 351) (a) ITAL 101, 102 (b) 20 points from LANG 101, FHSS 110

[Faculty Ref No.] AB21/23a

(c) ITAL 201, 202 and 20 further points from (ITAL 200–299, LANG 200–299) (d) ITAL 301, 302 and 20 further points from ITAL 300–399, LANG 300-399

Proposed amendments to the major subject requirements for the major in Modern Language Studies (Calendar 2021, p. 352) (a) Either CHIN 101, 102, or FREN 101, 102, or GERM 101, 102, or ITAL 101, 102, or JAPA 101, 102, or MAOR 111, 112, or SAMO 101, 102, or SPAN 101, 102 (b) Either CHIN 201, 202, or FREN 201, 202, or GERM 201, 202, or ITAL 201, 202, or JAPA 201, 202, or MAOR 211, 221, or SAMO 201, 202, or SPAN 201, 202 (c) Either CHIN 301, 302, or FREN 301, 302, or GERM 301, 302 or 303, 304, or ITAL 301, 302 20 further points from ITAL300-399, LANG 300-399, or JAPA 301, 302, or MAOR 311, 321, or SAMO 301, 302 or SPAN 301, 302 (d) LING 111 and 40 points from LING 200–399

Proposed amendments for the entry requirements for the BA with Honours in Italian (Calendar 2021, p. 357) The BA major requirements for Italian (or, with the approval of the Head of School, the BA major requirements for Modern Language Studies, including ITAL 316301).

A4 Implications and resources

Academic staff Existing academic staff in Italian will continue to teach the amended major in a more sustainable way, allowing them to continue their increased contributions to School, Faculty and University-wide courses and programmes, as well as serve in substantial administrative roles.

Library There are no implications for the library as no new courses are being introduced.

Teaching facilities and support There are no implications for teaching facilities and support as no new courses are being introduced.

Anticipated enrolments No new courses are being introduced. We anticipate some increases to the enrolments in ITAL 201, 202, 301 and other 300-level courses on offer to meet course minima.

Administrative implications This change should have a minimal impact on school administrators. Clear communication with SASO around the change will be important.

Programme or course limitations / selection criteria n/a

Fee implications n/a

[Faculty Ref No.] AB21/23a

Website and publication amendments The major description will be changed to reflect the streamlined courses.

Transitional arrangements and other consequential changes Students completing the ITAL major in 2021 are on track under the current major requirements. Students in year one or two of their major will be able to be moved to the new major requirements. This advice can be given at the point of approval of enrolment.

Internships, field trips and other external arrangements n/a

A5 Treaty of Waitangi One benefit of the proposed change is that it will make it much easier to take Italian alongside another major, which we hope will make it possible for more students to study both te reo Māori and Italian, especially since speakers of te reo often find Italian relatively easy to acquire. Our Italian language and culture courses have for a long time included Māori perspectives and examples, for example through our te kupu o te wiki / parola della settimana programme in 100-level courses, course materials and translation activities related to the experiences of the 28th (Māori) Battalion in Italy and stories related to the interesting connections between Italy and Aotearoa. These sorts of examples and perspectives will continue to be taught in the streamlined major and we plan to advertise it as an option for speakers of te reo Māori.

A6 Consultation Refer to the cover sheet for consultation details.

[Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Programme amendment cover sheet

Proposal name 2021 change Computer Graphics major in the BSc to Computer Graphics and Games Proposer Simon McCallum

Faculty Engineering Summary Extending the Computer Graphics major to also cover Computer Games.

Year 2021 Reference BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 CONSULTATION Person consulted Summary and reference Academic Office [email protected] Feedback sought. Associate Dean Peter Andreae Feedback incorporated. Engineering Associate Dean Paul Teesdale-Spittle Feedback incorporated. Science CAD Stephen Marshall Feedback provided and incorporated. Course Admin. Teresa Schischka Feedback provided and incorporated. Faculty Admin. Johan Barnard No issues identified. Library Nicola Atkinson No issues identified. SRAO Cathy Powley Supports proposal. Notes importance of good web information to explain relation with Game Design programme. PAMI [email protected] Feedback received. Toihuarewa [email protected] Feedback sought. School Admin. Sue Hall Supportive, noted that resource (computers and lab) requirements will need to be met. Student Finance [email protected] No issues noted, as long as all work for CGRA 253 is within the course dates. Students Dylan Simpson; Attended Faculty Academic Committee and [email protected] Faculty Board. No issues identified. APPROVAL Authority Date Recorded by Head of School Stuart Marshall 05-05-2021 Heather Day (APM) Fac. Acad. Cttee. Peter Andreae 21-04-2021 Heather Day (APM) Science Faculty Louise Dixon 03-06-2021 Heather Day (APM) Board* [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Engineering Dale Carnegie 05-05-2021 Peter Andreae Faculty Board Acad. Committee Academic Committee 03-06-2021 Pam Green Academic Board CUAP * This proposal was considered by Science Faculty Board on 3 June 2021. Due to the number of proposals expected at the 29 June 2021 Academic Committee meeting, it was agreed to consider this at the 1 June 2021 Academic Committee meeting. It was agreed that, If necessary, it would come back to Academic Committee after Science Faculty Board. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Programme amendment

Proposal name Change Computer Graphics (CGRA) major to Computer Graphics and Games (CGRG) in the BSc Faculty Engineering CUAP Category Section 6.1.8, a change in the name of a qualification or subject (CUAP Handbook 2019).

A1 Purpose To expand the coverage of the existing Computer Graphics major in the BSc to provide a broader focus on computer games in addition to computer graphics. This involves: 1. Changing the name of the Computer Graphics (CGRA) major in the BSc to “Computer Graphics and Games” (CGRG). 2. Changing the requirements for the Computer Graphics and Games Major and Minor in the BSc. 3. Introducing two new 200-level courses, CGRA 252 (Game and Graphics Engine Programming) and CGRA 259 (Game Prototyping) (First offered in 2023). 4. Replacing COMP 313 with a new 300-level 30-point course CGRA 359 (Games and Graphics Project) (First offered in 2024). 5. Replacing CGRA 251 (Computer Graphics) by CGRA 354 (Computer Graphics Programming) (First offered in 2024). 6. Modifying the title and prescription of CGRA 151 (Introduction to Computer Graphics) (From 2022). 7. Deleting two courses: CGRA 351 and CGRA 402 (From 2024). 8. Updating Graduate Attributes for the Computer Graphics and Games major.

VUW Internal Note: in a non-CUAP proposal, alongside this CUAP proposal, the School is deleting a further course, NWEN 342. There will therefore be no net increase in the courses offered by the School.

A2 Justification Computer Graphics and Computer Games have been linked throughout their development. Real- time computer graphics is mostly used in games, and the games industry has been the primary driving force for graphics hardware and graphics technology. In recent years, the computer games industry has grown to become the dominant employment market for graduates in computer graphics and many students doing computer graphics are very interested in computer games. However, the current Computer Graphics major in the BSc has not addressed this connection with games in the past and has focused more on core graphics techniques, algorithms, and programming. The school has offered a (popular) course in computer game development (taught in conjunction with a course from the School of Design Innovation) but this is not an explicit component of the Computer Graphics major.

The proposal addresses this disconnect between the current Computer Graphics major and demand from industry and students by expanding the scope of the major to explicitly include [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Computer Games and modifying the set of courses in the major to explicitly address both graphics and games and the close connection between them. The proposal has been constructed in coordination with the School of Design Innovation which is planning to introduce a complementary major focusing on Game Design, and the two programmes are intended to work together with points of contact at each year, with co-taught courses and opportunities for students in both majors to take courses from the complementary programme. We expect the broader coverage of the major to increase its attractiveness to new students, and to draw more students into the programme. For database reasons, the code for the major will also have to be changed to CGRG. (A1.1 & A1.2).

The restructuring of the courses and the revised major requirements will ensure that graduates with the major will have a strong background across Computer Graphics and Computer Games and will increase the number of 300-level courses in the major that are explicitly related to the major. One of the new courses (CGRA 259) will enhance industry engagement, giving all the students exposure to companies in the industry, enhancing the industry relevance of the qualification and deepening the relationships between the School and the Computer Graphics and Games industry. The major will also now allow students to take the closely related SWEN 304 User Experience Engineering. The changes to the major lead to consequential changes to the requirements of the minor.

The new courses are a game and graphics engine course, a game prototyping course, and a capstone project course: • The game and graphics engine course recognises that game and graphics engines are an essential part the game development industry and are becoming a standard technology in film, architecture, Mixed Reality and interactive media industries. (A1.3) • The game prototyping course will give students a connection to industry through involvement in industry-driven game jams. These are events which run over weekends with the intent of creating innovative new games ideas to a prototype level and developing skills of working with cross disciplinary teams, with tight constraints, and limited time. The course will be more effective than traditional internships because of the challenges around IP and workload issues with internships in games and graphics companies. (A1.3) • The 30-point capstone project course will replace the current 15pt 300-level game development course in the Computer Science programme, and be expanded to allow the coverage of content related to the business of gaming, game production, and legal and social issues related to game development. (A1.4)

Two existing courses will be modified. The 100-level course, CGRA 151, will be modified to provide a broader base for the programme by replacing some of the mathematical topics with game development content. The 200-level course focused on graphics programming, CGRA 251, will be replaced by a new 300-level course, CGRA 354, that will address similar topics as CGRA 251 but will include more mathematics material and can build on the better preparation provided by CGRA 252. (A1.5 and A1.6).

The new proposed structure has been developed in conjunction with the School of Design Innovation to maximise the value of this major and the Game Design major. Both majors contain a [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b fully integrated first year course DSDN 102 followed by continued specialisation into the two majors as students develop unique skillsets and learn to work within an interdisciplinary group to achieve a shared goal.

To expand the coverage of the major, we need to extend the Graduate Attributes to include game development skill and understanding. Graduates of the BSc Major in Computer Graphics and Games will be able to 1. Understand and apply a range of fundamental concepts and principles of computer graphics and game development. 2. Design and implement computer programs and use professional graphics tools and game engines to produce advanced computer graphics and games systems. content 3. Apply their knowledge of mathematics, and programming and computer science to design programs and scripts to generate new computer games and graphics effects. 4. Learn and apply new and advanced computer game and graphics techniques and tools to solve graphics problems. 5. Work in teams of mixed skills and expertise to create computer games and solve computer graphics tasks.

A3 Proposed amendments

Internal Note: If the related proposal for a new Game Design major in the BDI goes ahead, “DSDN 132” below would be replaced by “DSDN 132 or DSDN 102” Also, CGRA 359 will be co-taught with GAME 390 (introduced in the Game Design proposal), just as COMP 313 is currently co-taught with MDDN 321 allowing cross-disciplinary teams of students to work on a project together, but with different assessment requirements for the different courses. 1. In the Major Subject Requirements for the BSc (p. 420, 2021 Calendar), amend as follows: Computer Graphics and Games (CGRACGRG) (a) CGRA 151, COMP (102 or 112), 103, (DSDN 102 or 132); (ENGR 121, 123) or (MATH 151, 161) (b) CGRA 2521, NWEN 241, (COMP 261 or SWEN 221), (CGRA 259 or ANFX 201 or MATH 245), (ENGR 123 or MATH 161 or 251) (c) CGRA 359; 30 further points from (CGRA 300–399, SWEN 303); 30 further 300-level points from ANFX, CGRA, COMP, MATH, NWEN, SWEN.

2. In the Minor Subject Requirements for the BSc (p. 424, 2021 Calendar), amend as follows: Computer Graphics and Games (CGRACGRG)—CGRA 2521, NWEN 241; 15 further 300-level CGRA points.

3. In the Combined Undergraduate Schedule (pp. 161, 167, 2021 Calendar), amend as follows:

Course Title Pts Prerequisites (P), Corequisites (C), Restrictions Degree (X), Double labelling (D) Schedule CGRA 151 Introduction to Computer 15 P COMP 102 or 112 or DSDN 142; 15 pts from BE(Hons), Graphics and Games (ENGR 121, MATH 100–199) or 16 Achievement BSc [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Standard credits NCEA Level 3 mathematics (or equivalent) CGRA 251 Computer Graphics 15 P CGRA 151; NWEN 241; ENGR 121 or MATH BE(Hons), 151 or permission of Head of School BSc CGRA 252 Game and Graphics 15 P CGRA 151, COMP 103 BE(Hons), Engine Programming BSc CGRA 259 Game Prototyping 15 P CGRA 151, COMP 103; X GAME 203 taken BE(Hons), concurrently. BSc CGRA 350 Real-Time 3D Computer 15 P CGRA 2521, COMP 261, NWEN 241; X COMP BE(Hons), Graphics 308 BSc CGRA 351 Visual Effects 15 P CGRA 251; COMP 261 or NWEN 241 BE(Hons), Programming BSc CGRA 352 Image-Based Graphics 15 P CGRA 2521, COMP 261 or NWEN 241 BE(Hons), BSc CGRA 354 Computer Graphics 15 P CGRA 252, NWEN 241; ENGR 121 or MATH BE(Hons), Programming 151 X CGRA 251 BSc CGRA 359 Games and Graphics 30 P CGRA 252; 15 300-level CGRA pts; X COMP BE(Hons), Project 313; GAME 390 taken concurrently. BSc COMP 313 Computer Game 15 P 30 pts from (COMP 261, NWEN 241, 243, BE(Hons), Development SWEN 222, 225) BSc

4. In the Schedule to the BSc(Hons) Regulations (p. 431, 2021 Calendar), amend as follows:

Course Title Pts Prerequisites (P), Corequisites (C), Restrictions (X) CGRA 402 Project in Computer 15 P permission of Head of School Graphics Programming

Note: CGRA 251 and CGRA 402 will be deleted from the 2023 calendar; COMP 313, CGRA 351, will be deleted from the 2024 calendar

A4 Implications and resources

Academic staff All courses can be taught with existing staff numbers. Given the concurrent deletion of another course in the school (NWEN 342), this proposal does not result in an increase in the number of courses in the School. The School already has five staff in the Computer Graphics area who can contribute to the programme. The School also has two staff with expertise in computer games. (One is currently HoS, but he will step down from that position and will be able to contribute to the games courses from 2022.) There will be additional teaching load on the staff while the new courses are being developed, but the courses will be rolled in over two years to spread this load, and the two new 300-level courses are modifications of existing courses rather than completely new courses. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Library Feedback is being sought from the Subject Librarian.

Teaching facilities and support There are several implications for teaching facilities and support if numbers in the major meet the expected targets below. • From 2023, we will need to upgrade the computers in at least one of the ECS computer labs to support the requirements of CGRA 252, since game engines require improved hardware. • We will need to ensure access to game engine software (including Unreal and Unity) for those labs. Unity has a licencing cost. • The expected increase in student numbers in CGRA 252 and 350 might require more lab seats, though some of the increase is expected to come from other ECS courses, so that the increases may be partially compensated by reductions in other courses. However, much of the lab requirements can be provided via “virtual labs” with students using their own laptops or home machines and providing a small number of physical lab seats for students who do not have adequate personal computing. Such virtual labs would require an additional server to provide screen streaming and online communication services, but the cost of this would be very much lower than providing more physical lab seats. • From 2024, CGRA 359, co-taught with GAME 390 will require more lab space than the current COMP 313, cotaught with MDDN 321: the student numbers are expected to be higher, and the point value is doubled, requiring more lab hours. In conjunction with SoDI, the school is exploring options for more space with facilities management. Although some of the group work can be done online, taking some pressure off the lab requirements, there will still be a need for physical lab space for in-person group meetings. The manager Course Administration and Timetabling notes that from a timetabling point of view, there needs to be good collaboration between the schools regarding the co-taught courses to ensure consistent constraints etc for scheduling.

Anticipated enrolments The School currently has around 25 students per year in the first two years of the CGRA major, and 17 students in the third year. 90 students have applied for the limited entry 300-level Computer Game Development course, including 13 of the 17 eligible CGRA majors. CGRA 151 also provides an important service role to other majors in the School and has over 200 students. We expect that expanding the CGRA major to include computer games will triple the size of the major, with approximately 25 Computer Science (COMP) students either adding or changing to the CGRA major, and approximately 20 new students attracted to Victoria University of Wellington for the Computer Graphics and Games major who would not otherwise have come to this University. We also expect some COMP and Software Engineering (SWEN) majors to take some of the new CGRA courses. Our best estimates for student numbers if the major does triple in size are:

Course Enrol # Course Enrol # Course Enrol # CGRA151 275 CGRA 252 100 CGRA 350 85 CGRA 259 90 CGRA 352 50 CGRA 354 50 CGRA 359 75 [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Note that the concurrent proposal from the School of Design Innovation (SoDI) for a GAME major in the BDI includes GAME 203 which will be co-taught with CGRA 259. The estimated enrolments in CGRA 259 do not include these numbers, and the effective enrolments would be significantly higher.

Administrative implications The main impact will be on increased logistics around timetabling between SoDI and ECS to ensure that students in the BSc CGRG major and the new BDI GAME major are able to take the required courses offered by the other school.

Programme or course limitations / selection criteria Currently, COMP 313, which is co-taught with MDDN 311 has a limitation on the number of students due to the lab resources and the need to have somewhat balanced teams of students from computer science and design. CGRA 359 will have a similar limitation. We would expect to continue the limitation of 50 students to begin with. Since the course is required by the CGRA major, if the number of CGRA majors rises above 50, we will have to find additional resources to raise the limitation. In the case that there are more applications than the limitation, priority for enrolment in CGRA 359 will be given to CGRA majors, and selection of non-CGRA students will be based on academic record.

Fee implications There are no fee implications.

Website and publication amendments The main change will be to add additional descriptions of the game content in the degree and the strong link with Design. The descriptions will be included in an appendix.

Transitional arrangements and other consequential changes The new and revised courses will be rolled in over 2022-2024, starting with CGRA 151 revisions in 2022. Existing students in the CGRA major will generally need to complete under the current rules for the CGRA major, but will be allowed to complete under the new rules if they delay their programme to take the new courses. Existing CGRA students completing under the current rules who have not passed CGRA 251 before 2023 will be permitted to substitute CGRA 252 or CGRA 354 in its place. Once the new CGRG major is implemented, the Postgraduate programme in Computer Graphics may need to be revised. We expect to review those programmes in 2023, to construct proposals for any changes during 2024, to be implemented in 2025.

Internships, field trips and other external arrangements A significant innovation in this proposal is the link to industry game jams. There are currently 6 game jams locally with hundreds running internationally. The current local ones are: • Global Game Jam – International, local site run by members of Game Developer of Wellington • Game Jam Aotearoa – part of tech week run by ICT Grad Schools • NZGF: PB & Jam - NZ Game Jam: part of NZ Game festival [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

• Kiwijam – Hosted at Auckland University and Design Te Aro Campus • PxlJam – VEC run on Victoria University of Wellington Campus • Game Jam for Health – Ministry of Health, run by the course coordinator at Molesworth street. MOH - HQ These are weekend events and do not require travel outside of the region. They are also not managed or run by the University but provide students with an internship like activity. We will need to provide support for students, but this is no greater than current support levels.

A5 Treaty of Waitangi Game development is a multidisciplinary area which combines creative, technical, design, and cultural capability to create cultural artifacts. Internationally, games can be seen as both reflections of and creators of the culture that created them. In the 20th Century, film and television led a cultural colonisation of New Zealand. Computer games are now the dominant entertainment media and so it is essential that more New Zealanders and specifically Māori are engaged in the creation of computer games.

The new Game Prototyping course and the capstone project course will encourage students create games that reflect their cultural background. Game jams usually have a theme, but within those themes it is possible to express creative freedom. As part of the reflection process after each game jam, students will be asked to discuss the cultural and equity issues related to the prototype they worked on. We will be exploring the possibility of running a game jam focused on Māori cultural themes associated with the Living Pa. This will encourage all students, but especially Māori.

CGRA 359 includes lectures and assessment content related to the social and cultural perspectives on game development. This will include a discussion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and engagement with the Living Pa.

The major can be combined with other majors or minors, and therefore will also allow Māori students to combine their technical expertise with strategic areas of research focus, specifically scholarship in media, culture, health, science and technology.

The Design teaching team is led by Tuakana Metuarau who is Māori. Within the Engineering faculty, Kevin Shedlock will give some lectures in second year courses based on his use of game engines in indigenous projects. We also have a close working relationship with Āwhina and the Pasifika Pathways programme.

A6 Consultation Please refer to appendix for consultation details. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Course Description: CGRA 252 (2023,T2)

Course title Game and Graphics Engine Programming Short title Game Engine Programming Point value 15

Course coordinator [Course Coordinator] NZQF level 6 Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc

Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P CGRA 151, COMP 103 Prescript This course introduces students to a range of game and graphics engines and teaches students ion how to use the variety of tools in these engines to build games and graphics output. Students will learn how to program extensions to games and graphics engines and how to use graphics APIs such as OpenGL in their programming.

Student workload hours 150 Contact Hours Teaching/learning summary Lectures 24

A combination of lectures to teach theory and labs to explore different Tutorials aspects of game and graphics engines, are supported by assignments to Seminars use and extend state-of-the-art game engines. Labs/Studios 24 TOTAL 48 Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course will be able to: 1 Use standard conceptual frameworks and vocabulary for computer game engines, their components, and designs. 2 Identify key qualities and features of different game engine systems, in order to evaluate them and use them effectively. 3 Extend various engine systems and combine them to engage in game development.

4 Describe and modify the graphics pipeline within a game/graphics engine to demonstrate understanding of core algorithms in computer graphics. 5 Work in teams to build technical demonstrations of game/graphics engine features and extensions. Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s) 1 Technical review of game engine features (5 Pages/ 25 hours) 25% 1,2

2 Individual project demonstration of game engine features (25 Work hours including 25% 2,3 15-minute demonstration)

3 Group project on implementing extensions to game engines (40 hours) 30% 2,3,4,5

4 Individual implementation test (9 hours prep + 3 Hours test) 20% 2, 3

Mandatory course requirements In addition to achieving an overall pass mark of 50%, • students must: achieve 50% on the individual implementation test. Justification: the students must be able to demonstrate their individual ability to implement game and graphics features in a game engine. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Course Description: CGRA 359 (2024,T2)

Course title Games and Graphics Project Short title Game and Graphics Project Point value 30

Course coordinator TBC NZQF level 7 Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc

Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P CGRA 252, 15 300-level CGRA pts; X COMP 313; GAME 390 taken concurrently

Prescription This course is a capstone for the Computer Graphics and Games major in which students learn to work in a multidisciplinary team to develop a game or graphics system to release quality. The course will be taught in conjunction with GAME 390, and most teams will have students from both courses.

Student workload hours 300 Contact Hours Teaching/learning summary Lectures 24

The main learning activity in this course is the development of a game or Tutorials graphics system in a multidisciplinary team. The lectures support the students to Seminars learn additional context such as the business of gaming, game production, legal and social issues related to game development. Labs/Studios 48 This course is run in conjunction with GAME 390 in the School of Design TOTAL 72 Innovations (SoDI). Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course will be able to: 1 Apply a variety of programming and software engineering techniques to the design and implementation of computer games or graphics systems. 2 Use integrated development tools to build interactive systems with a focus on computer games or graphics systems. 3 Work in a team with designers from other disciplines to design, develop, and evaluate an interactive system. 4 Present their work in an oral format summarising the unique selling point, and the future potential of the system developed. 5 Reflect on the quality of their work and identify opportunities to learn and improve. Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s) 1 Prototype (22 hours) 20% 1

2 Presentation of the project (6 hours) 10% 5

3 Project submission (50 hours outside of lab time) 70% 2,3,4,6

Mandatory course requirements None None [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Course Description: CGRA 151 (2022, T2)

Course title Introduction to Computer Graphics and Games Short title Introduction to Computer Graphics and Games Point value 15 Course coordinator Fanglue Zhang NZQF level 5 Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P COMP 102 or 112 or DSDN 142 Prescription Introduces necessary background, fundamental concepts, and basic algorithms of Computer Graphics and Game Programming, including human visual perception, representation of colour and images, representation of 2D and 3D spaces, manipulation, movement and drawing of 2D and 3D objects. Students will use an appropriate modern programming language to investigate many of the ideas presented in the lectured material. Student workload hours 150 Contact Hours Teaching/learning summary Lectures 36 3x one-hour lectures per week and 1x one-hour tutorial. Assignments will be Tutorials 12 done in the students’ own time and count for 68 hours, with the remaining Seminars 34 hours for study and revision of taught content for the test and exam. Labs/Studios TOTAL 48 Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course will be able to: 1 Write simple programs for graphics and games in the Processing programming language. 2 Understand, explain and reproduce a range of fundamental computer graphics and game algorithms, including line drawing, polygon filling, z-buffer, collision detection and movement. 3 Understand and use the vector and matrix representations in homogenous co-ordinate systems, to perform geometric transformations in two and three dimensions Understand and describe 3D viewing and perspective projection. 4 Understand and explain human interaction with computer systems via performance modelling. Describe the limitations, and the implications these limitations have on representation and interactions with computer graphics and games. 5 Explain fundamental properties of light, colour, the human visual system, and basic mechanics, particularly as they relate to the creation of programs for graphics and games. Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s) 1 Three programming assignments (3%, 7%, 7%, total 30 hours) 17% 1, 2 2 Mathematics worksheet (8 hours) 2% 3

3 Programming Project (30 hours) 16% 1,3,4

4 Test 10% 1,2,4

5 Exam 55% 2,4,5

Mandatory course requirements In addition to achieving an overall pass mark of 50%, students must: • Achieve at least 40% average across the test and exam. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

• Achieve at least 40% average across the assignments ("assignments" include the three programming assignments, mathematics worksheet, project proposal and final project).

Course Description: CGRA 350 (2024, T1)

Course title Real-time 3D Computer Graphics Short title Real-time 3D Computer Graphics Point value 15 Course coordinator Alex Doronin NZQF level 7 Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P CGRA 252, NWEN 241; X COMP 308 Prescription This course addresses graphics programming for real-time 3D graphics. It covers graphics APIs, in particular OpenGL, and the graphics processing pipeline (including geometry processing, viewing, projection, transformation, illumination, texture mapping). It also addresses display hardware and graphics cards. Student workload hours 150 Contact Hours Teaching/learning summary Lectures 24

The course has 2x one-hour lectures per week. Much of the learning is Tutorials through work on the assignments and project. These lectures will be offered TOTAL 24 in a blended format, so students are able to work remotely. Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course should be able to: 1 Explain and navigate the structure of the interactive 3D graphics pipeline, from 3D geometry input to final rendering images. 2 Efficiently and effectively use standard graphics APIs (e.g., OpenGL) to implement real-time 3D graphics applications. 3 Implement and modify programs that use important computer graphics algorithms to solve interactive computer graphics problems. Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s) 1 Programming Assignment 1 (15 hours) 20 1, 2, 3 2 Programming Assignment 2 (10 hours) 15 1, 2, 3 3 Project Proposal (10 hours) 10 1 4 Programming Assignment 3 (15 hours) 20 1, 2, 3 5 Project submission and Report (40 hours) 35 1, 2, 3 Mandatory course requirements In addition to achieving an overall pass mark of 50%, students must: Achieve at least 40% in the final project. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Course Description: CGRA 354 (2024,T1)

Course title Computer Graphics Programming Short title Computer Graphics Programming Point value 15 Course coordinator TBC NZQF level 7 Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc

Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P CGRA 252, NWEN 241; ENGR 121 or MATH 151 X CGRA 251 Prescription This course addresses advanced algorithms, mathematical knowledge and programming tools for 3D Computer Graphics. It covers modern low-level graphics APIs, shader programming and the graphics processing pipeline (including geometry processing, viewing, projection, transformation, illumination, texture mapping and shading algorithms). It also addresses viewport hardware (e.g. displays, VR headsets) and graphics cards (GPUs). Student workload hours 150 hours Contact Hours Teaching/learning summary Lectures 36

Lecture based course, with 3x one-hour lectures. These are offered in a blended Tutorials format for online students. TOTAL 36 Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course will be able to: 1 Implement advanced shading and transformation algorithms within a 3D graphics/game engine pipeline when given an appropriate basic framework from which to start. 2 Explain and implement three-dimensional rigid object animation using physical simulation. 3 Use a range of algebraic tools, including trilinear and tricubic interpolation, vector arithmetic (dot and cross products), intersection calculations between a ray and various primitive objects, ray tracing, velocity and position updates in an interactive physical simulation. 4 Explore and implement global illumination algorithms (such as ray tracing) for photorealistic lighting/appearance simulation. Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s) 1 Assignment 1 (18 hours) 10% 1

2 Assignment 2 (18 hours) 15% 1,2 3 Assignment 3 (18 hours) 15% 2,3 4 Assignment 4 (18 hours) 20% 3,4 5 Exam 40% 1,2,3,4 Mandatory course None. requirements [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Course Description: CGRA 352 (2024,T2)

Course title Image-Based Graphics Short title Image-Based Graphics Point value 15 Course coordinator TBC NZQF level 7 Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc

Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P CGRA 252, NWEN 241

Prescription Image-based Graphics brings together the power of image processing and computer graphics to use real-world visual media content to produce vivid, compelling, and meaningful computer graphics. This course studies ways of manipulating and combining images and videos, including image filtering, image manipulation, and video processing.

Student workload hours 150 Contact Hours Teaching/learning summary Lectures 36 Lecture-based course assessed through substantial practical programming Tutorials assignments. Seminars Labs/Studios TOTAL 36 Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course will be able to: 1 Describe and demonstrate through implementation in software an understanding of the fundamentals of image representation, colour models, pixel-level manipulation algorithms and filtering-based image processing techniques. 2 Describe and demonstrate through implementation in software an understanding of popular image content manipulation methods like image synthesis, seamless image composition and content-aware resizing. 3 Describe and demonstrate through implementation in software an understanding of computational photography technology and advanced imaging techniques, like HDR imaging and light field cameras. 4 Describe and demonstrate through implementation in software an understanding of the fundamentals of feature matching and image warping, and how to perform video enhancement like stabilization. Be able to implement image warping and alignments and a straightforward video stabilizer. Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s) 1 Programming Assignment 1 (15 hours) 20 1 2 Programming Assignment 2 (20 hours) 30 1, 2 3 Programming Assignment 3 (15 hours) 20 3 4 Programming Assignment 4 (30 hours) 30 4 Mandatory course requirements In addition to achieving an overall pass mark of at least 50%, students must: None. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Course Description: CGRA 259 (2023,Non-standard: F)

Course title Game Prototyping - Programming

Short title Game Prototyping - Programming Point value 15

Course coordinator TBC NZQF level 6

Qualification schedule: BE(Hons), BSc

Prerequisites, corequisites, restrictions P CGRA 151, COMP 103; X GAME 203 taken concurrently

Prescription This course uses game jams and hackathons as a learning environment where students work with commercial developers to learn how to develop new and innovative game prototypes. Students from the Graphics and Games major will be collaborating with students from the School of Design Innovation.

Student workload hours 150 Contact Hours

Teaching/learning summary Lectures 6

This course has a set of 6 introductory lectures followed by 3 intensive Tutorials 6 Studio sessions called Game Jams or Hackathons. These Game Jams are run Seminars in conjunction with industry, with supervision and feedback provided during the game jam from staff. These form most of the learning Labs/Studios 90 environment. Six tutorials provide additional preparation for the Jams. The TOTAL 102 rest of the 48 hours are students learning to use the development tools and writing reflection reports on learning. The course organiser will construct a curated list of approved Game Jams. The School may also be involved in organising some game jams, and these would be recommended to students, though not required.

Course learning objectives (CLOs) Students who pass this course should be able to:

1 Use digital rapid prototyping tools to create, implement and test prototypes.

2 Work in groups with diverse skills to create innovative designs, manage task allocation, communicate ideas, integrate work, and coordinate the production of a digital artifact.

3 Pitch ideas and present prototypes orally and with supporting material.

4 Evaluate the effectiveness of the game prototyping development process and reflect on the learning value.

Assessment items and workload per item % CLO(s)

1 Game prototype development x 3 (30 hours per session = 90 hours) 30 1, 2

2 Prototype presentation (3 hours) 10 3

3 Game Jam report x 3 (8 hours per report = 24 hours total) 60 4

Mandatory course requirements: None.

Major/Programme attribute CLO(s)

1 BSc 1,2,4,5 1,2 [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

VUW internal explanation: further details of the delivery of the course.

We will actively manage the pastoral care for students. The Game jams have 3 tiers of support. 1, The fully supervised Game Jams (minimum 3) will have a staff member or contracted tutor onsite during the game jam to ensure participant safety and provide academic support. 2, The curated game jams will have agreements between the organisers and the university and ensure there is appropriate support. Staff and/or tutors will be available online to support students. 3, Approved game jams will be vetted by the staff to ensure they have appropriate policies around pastoral care, health and safety and IP agreements.

It is possible for students to also do game jams that fall outside the already specified list, but they will need approval. Students will receive instruction about personal safety, IP, and how to behave professionally in this space.

Assessment There was a concern about assessing this course. The grading is done on the submissions of the code/etc for the game jams (includes the review of git repository commits and development logs) combined with the reports that the students write about the game jams. The reports contain a base description written by the group, but each student must present and discuss their individual contribution. This includes a submission and discussion of the a git repository with details of submissions and clear indication of the student's contribution. The students must document significant contribution to 3 game jams. If students cannot show that they have contributed to project and learnt, then they are required to do additional game jams until they have completed 3 jams to the satisfactory level. Therefore, it is feasible to assess the students individually. Note that the course will be based on more than 50% group work. This has been approved by the AD.

IP agreement – There was a concern that the industry partners in the game jams might require the IP that the students generated. There will be at least 3 game jams where this not the case, and in fact, most game jams leave the IP with the student, often with some constraints. For example the Global Game Jam has the following requirements: The team/makers of the game hold all IP rights. However, the Global Game Jam® may use the games for demonstration as it sees fit. All games must be posted in the condition they are in as of the close of the GGJ event (Sunday), including both executable and source code (or equivalent). All participants and all games entered for GGJ must agree to a Creative Commons, share, alter, no sell license. Third party tools and software may be used in the projects and must not be uploaded or shared. Clear instructions must be provided as to how to obtain and install any third party software that is necessary for further development. Please note that creative commons license has been updated to a version 4 since this page was made, so you can either choose the above v3 license or go with this v4 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 version. See also: the Content Policy. To check when jammer registration opens, check the important dates page.

Reliability There was a concern that depending on industry run game jams would make the course unreliable. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

However there are over 100 Game Jams https://itch.io/jams - running internationally on any given weekend, and some of these have been running for 20 years. The students are able to work on these international game jams if the 6 locally run jams were to disappear. More importantly, the local game jams have input from staff in the school, and the School will be able to run game jams itself.

Distance This course works extremely well for distance students as the international game jams have a successful model for integrating online participants.

Participants There was a concern that students would not be prepared for participating in game jams by their 1nd year. However, Game Jams are designed to take in participants at a huge variety of skill levels. Students will be given an introduction to the game engines used in game jams. Thus, second year students will be able to learn and contribute to these game jams.

Game Prototyping [Course Coordinator] [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Appendix: Consultation

Proposal name 2021 change Graphics to Graphics and Games

Consultation Response to feedback

Tuakana Metuarau, SoDI, Lead lecturer Multiple discussion of content of design course at 100 200 and 300 level. in games design

Jan Smitheram, SoDI, AD(academic) Discussion of staffing and focus of joint activities

Jordan Browne, Program Director, Discussion on the differences between the existing integrated degree where Media Design School every course is game focused and this proposal where only some of the courses are focussed on games. We are different enough to appeal to different markets.

PikPok – CTO – Jeremy Burgess Should include business of game development – Added lectures to CGRA359 Soft skills – must work in groups as that is lacking in VUW grads – Increase the size of the group project COMP359 Willing to give lectures on process - guest lectures added Already enough graduates – they must be able to start their own business - Entrepreneurship added to CGRA359 Virtual Reality interesting, Engine use critical, - Added course on Engines CGRA252 must also code rather than just use blueprints.

PikPok – CDO - Andy Business knowledge critical – Added content Group work with other disciplines (paired groups CGRA 253 Design separate from art – graphic design is not game design - Game Design courses to manage this.

PikPok – Lead Tech – Andrew Rowse Understanding complexity of low level optimisation and high level constraints. CGRA350 updated to ensure this balance

NZGDA – Secretary & PikPok - Scrum Need to understand the roles in projects – content in CGRA359 Master - Zea Slosar Clear communication - game prototyping and reflection in GRA253 Recognition of different development processes - (CGRA252, CGRA253, CGRA359 all have different dev processes) Working for the players - DSDN102 compulsory

Magic Leap – Business Development - Understanding the business of game development is very important. James Everett Added business development content to CGRA359

Rocketworkz – Tech Team lead Peter Working in groups, good communication, understanding the professional Ashford aspect of game development Group collaboration throughout degree

Magic Leap – Lead Tech – Joe OSulivan Being able to dig deeply into game engines for innovative products. Working on projects to completion. CGRA252 and CGRA3xx

NZGDA - Board Member - Mead Unsure of value of research. See experience working in companies is more Robertson important than additional research – Industry partners critical to offering courses at postgraduate level – Update undergraduate degree

CODE – Operating Manager – Tim This is competition for Otago Polytechnic, but given the different region this Ponting is fine. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b

Fiona McCullagh – supporting game Identified the need for more graduates and talent in the area. Supports development studios at NZTE both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Significant change in attitude towards games as an industry at NZTE over the last year.

In addition to the consultation listed in the table above, the design of the revised major was also informed by the ACM computing curriculum 2020 which states: “Another such area is digital game design and development (DGDD). Another is media development. In the United States alone, more than five hundred DGDD programs currently exist, and many more exist worldwide. Curricular efforts in game and media programs are ongoing. The game and media industries develop specialized hardware and software that are now being utilized in higher education. The industry stands at about US $43.4B in the United States alone, thereby making this emerging area a worldwide phenomenon”. [Faculty Ref No.] VUW/21 – BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3 AB21/23b AB21/24

MEMORANDUM TO Academic Board FROM Professor Stuart Brock, Vice-Provost Academic

DATE 9 June 2021

SUBJECT Report and Implementation Plan from the Academic programme review of Accounting and Commercial Law

The programme review of Accounting and Commercial Law was held in November 2020, via Zoom. The School of Accounting and Commercial Law have finalised their response to the review panel’s report in an implementation plan.

The report made eight commendations of good practice, which included praise for the work so far on a review of the undergraduate Accounting curriculum, the success of the team teaching approach, and the integration of the Commercial Law programme into other parts of the Faculty.

The review also made nine recommendations for improvement, which have been accepted and actions have begun to implement them. These are listed in the attached implementation plan. This includes continuing the Accounting curriculum review (Recommendation 2) and developing a framework for identifying and including an Ao Māori perspective (Recommendation 8).

The report also included a section entitled ‘Advice to the Dean’, which discusses topics that the Panel felt were important for the Faculty to be aware of that were impacting students in the Accounting and/or Commercial Law programmes, but which were not recommendations for the School to action.

Recommendations

That the Academic Board:

1. Receive: the report and implementation plan for the academic programme review of the programmes in Accounting and Commercial Law.

2. Advise: the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of the Wellington School of Business and Government on any academic matters arising from the review.

1 2 AB21/24a

ACADEMIC PROGRAMME REVIEW

Programmes in Accounting and Commercial Law

9 to 11 November 2020

Report Completed 17 March 2021 ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Acknowledgements

The Panel would like to acknowledge the staff and students of the university who engaged with the review process, and for their participation in the review via videoconferencing (using zoom), which was used due to the global Covid-19 situation. The Panel would also like to thank the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association for their well-presented submission summarising a survey of student views.

Panel members

Dr Cherie Chu-Fuluifaga (Convener) School of Education Victoria University of Wellington

Professor Annick Masselot Professor of Law College of Business and Law University of Canterbury

Professor Paul De Lange Professor in Accounting University of Tasmania

Mr Warren Allen (Former) CE of the External Reporting Board (XRB) Wellington

Secretariat: Edward Schofield Academic Office

2

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 2 Panel members ...... 2 Observed areas of Strength ...... 4 Suggested areas for Improvement ...... 5 Scope of Review ...... 7 Review Procedure...... 7 The Panel’s Findings ...... 9 Design, Delivery and Assessment ...... 9 Link between Graduate Profile and courses ...... 9 Communication within and outside the Programmes ...... 10 Infusion of current business challenges into the Majors ...... 10 Infusion of current business challenges into the MPA ...... 11 Continuation of dual delivery/blended learning ...... 11 Successes in the programmes ...... 12 Support for Student Engagement and Retention ...... 13 Programme’s Community ...... 14 Bi-cultural and Multicultural Integration ...... 15 Advice to the Dean ...... 17 Challenges of the Core BCom courses ...... 17 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 18

3 ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Observed areas of Strength

The Panel observed the following areas of strength in the Accounting and Commercial Law Programmes, and had provided detail on the commendations in the body of the report. Commendation 1: The support for students is generally good and effectively utilises university programmes such as Peer Assisted Study Support (PASS). Commendation 2: The Programme began a review of the Accounting programme, including the integration of sustainability which is an important topic to cover. The Panel affirms their agenda of programme renewal and encourages this to be on a timely basis early in the next year. Commendation 3: Under the circumstances created by the Covid-19 situation, the staff have done a great job providing the dual delivery model and working through its associated challenges. Commendation 4: Team teaching which works well in sharing content and fostering a collegial work environment between staff. Commendation 5: Programmes have a strong performance in research which is informing the teaching programme. Staff are supported in engaging in research (e.g., international conferences and research excellence) and are also supported in their professional development (e.g., industry recognition) Commendation 6: The commitment to student success and the quality of the learning experience within the School. Commendation 7: The Commercial Law Programme working to successfully engage with and integrate teaching across the faculty. Commendation 8: The inclusion of Māori curriculum content has been attempted with appropriate case studies and examples in Accounting, and the Commercial Law programme has a stronger embedding of it with their teaching of the Treaty of Waitangi.

4

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Suggested areas for Improvement

The Panel believes the ten recommendations below will help the Accounting and Commercial Law programmes develop and improve. Each of the recommendations is listed under the review term-of-reference domain it relates to, and the Panel’s thoughts and evidence for each recommendation is included in the body of the report. ToR Domain 1 (Design) Recommendation 1: Ensure that: a) Courses are linked to the desired outcomes of the BCom majors in Accounting/Commercial Law and the university Graduate Profile. b) These links are clearly visible and communicated to staff and students. Recommendation 2: Continue with the curriculum review that began in 2019, with a view towards including a structured/planned inclusion of the ongoing innovations in business within Accounting and Commercial Law. Recommendation 3: Review the MPA in order to continue to meet the needs of professional accreditation, but to also provide a foundation for constant renewal to better manage the innovations and challenges in modern business. ToR Domain 2 (Delivery) Recommendation 4: Incorporate into the curriculum review a strategic decision about how delivery of the programmes (online and/or in person) will occur in the longer term. ToR Domain 3 (Reflection) Recommendation 5: Teaching staff should continue to support student engagement, retention and support, as well as further develop knowledge of the support services available to students from the central university to ensure they are actively used by students in the Accounting and Commercial Law programmes. ToR Domain 4 (Community) Recommendation 6: Continue to hold School retreats that allow staff to spend two days focusing on issues of importance to the Programmes and the School especially encouraging the School to work as a team. Recommendation 7: Adjust the name of the Teaching, Learning and Equity Committee to place ‘Learning’ first (i.e., the Learning, Teaching and Equity Committee).

5

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

ToR Domain 5 (Māori) Recommendation 8: Continue with the development of staff skills in Te Reo and Mātauranga Māori. The Panel suggests this might be done by; a) Engaging with the Āwhina programme, and having staff involved with all the stages of student engagement from recruitment through retention and graduation b) Focus on recruitment of Māori students into postgraduate studies, including through the use of summer scholarships, or through joint supervision into other programmes across the university ToR Domain 6 (Pasifika) Recommendation 9: Begin work on increasing the amount and quality of Pasifika content in the Programmes and the recruitment and retention of Pasifika Students in the programmes.

6

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Scope of Review

The Panel has understood that this academic programme review covers all of the offerings in the Accounting and Commercial Law disciplines, within the School of Accounting and Commercial Law. This includes: • The Accounting (ACCY) major in the Bachelor of Commerce • The Commercial Law (COML) major in the Bachelor of Commerce • The subjects offered in the BCom (Honours) and the MCom • The Master of Professional Accounting (MPA) • The supervision of PhD study by staff in Accounting and Commercial Law This review does not formally cover the Taxation programme, which is also offered within the School, however the Panel have made some comments in the report that have relevance to taxation. Review Procedure

Self-Review In accordance with the University’s Academic Reviews and Monitoring Policy, the Commercial Law and Accounting Programmes developed a self-review document to inform the review. This was done in conjunction with the School of Accounting and Commercial Law’s preparation of material for accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) review scheduled for May 2021. The self-review exercise is designed to involve qualitative reflection by those responsible for an academic programme on issues covered by the terms of reference, including the design, delivery and evaluation of the programmes, how the programmes develop a sense of academic community, how they engage with Māori and Pasifika students and content, and how programme staff engage with stakeholders external to the University.

Student Input into the Review VUWSA Submission The Victoria University of Wellington Students Association (VUWSA) provided the Panel with a report containing the results of their survey of students in the programme. A total of 130 students participated in the survey which covered students in all parts of the School’s programmes, including both undergraduate and postgraduate students. Students meeting with the Panel In accordance with the Programme review process, VUWSA organised for groups of students to meet with the review Panel. Three undergraduate students met with the Panel in one meeting. Unfortunately, no postgraduate students were available to meet with the Panel during the time of the review.

7

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Oral Submissions This review was the first review conducted by the University since the global outbreak of Covid-19. As a result, the review was undertaken primarily through videoconferencing (utilising the Zoom platform), although some discussions with the Panel were carried out in a hybrid of in-person and online meetings (where available). During the review, the Panel met with Victoria staff and students associated with the Programmes. Some of these meetings were with individuals and some were with groups. Those attending included: • The Acting Dean and Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Faculty of Commerce/Wellington School of Business and Government • The Acting Vice-Provost Academic • The Assistant Vice-Chancellor Mātauranga Māori • The Assistant Vice-Chancellor Pasifika • The Head of School for the School of Accounting and Commercial Law • The Programme Director for the Undergraduate Programmes • The Programme Director for the Master of Professional Accounting • The Chair of the Teaching Learning and Equity Committee • The Chair of the Research Committee • The academic staff in the programmes • Professional staff in the School • Students, as described above in Student Input into the Review

8

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

The Panel’s Findings Preamble The Accounting and Commercial Law programmes at Victoria University of Wellington are one of the key programmes that link strongly into a wide range of businesses. The programme has connections to industry and is involved in accreditation of both its programmes and the wider Wellington School of Business and Government. The Panel thinks that, overall, the School of Accounting and Commercial Law, and the programmes within it that were reviewed, are well situated to progress into the future and engage with the challenges raised in this report.

Design, Delivery and Assessment ToR Domain 1 – How effective is the Design of the Programme? ToR Domain 2 – How does the programme ensure that students are able to achieve the goals of the programme? The Panel was pleased at the Programme’s academic support for students, at both the individual staff level, and through the usage of the Peer Assisted Study Support (PASS) programme, which staff are engaging with to inform their teaching. The Panel commends the programmes for: Commendation 1: The support for students is generally good and effectively utilises university programmes such as Peer Assisted Study Support (PASS).

-- The Panel has identified a number of areas for improvement in the structure of the course architecture in the programmes. In some places these may be communication issues instead of (or as well as) structural issues, and this should affect how the programmes respond to the Panel’s suggestions. Link between Graduate Profile1 and courses The first area for improvement is in the course architecture of the programmes, which have an overall gap in clearly communicating the course learning outcomes and how they contribute toward the stated outcomes of graduates from the qualification and the Graduate Profile of the University. From the information available to the Panel, there was not a clear link between the course learning objectives detailed in the course outlines and the graduate profile of the university. The Panel expected that this kind of link would be made clear in the course outlines, to ensure that students are aware of how their skills are developed towards these outcomes. Also, the students would attain a clear understanding as to why certain teaching techniques and assessments are used and how they contribute towards a student obtaining the requisite learning outcomes. Some submissions to the Panel indicated that this may be a communication issue – a mapping exercise was undertaken within roughly the last five years to map the course outcomes towards the higher-level attributes of the qualification and university. This mapping ensured

1 https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/learning-teaching/partnership/graduate-profile 9

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a that these connections to outcomes were present at the time and the Panel supports the view expressed by some staff that it would be useful to refresh this mapping. However, this mapping was not known to all staff in the programmes, and insofar as the Panel could determine, not known to students either. This needs to be addressed and whether this is via additional information in course outlines or some alternative method, the Panel recommends the following: Recommendation 1: Ensure that:

a) Courses are linked to the desired outcomes of the BCom majors in Accounting/Commercial Law and the university Graduate Profile. b) These links are clearly visible and communicated to staff and students.

Communication within and outside the Programmes The Panel believes that the sub-disciplines within the programmes covered by this review have been functioning as individual units rather than as a collective whole. The Panel found that there is limited visible pedagogical underpinning of the overall programme. Knowledge about course progression/scaffolding within sub-disciplines (e.g., within management accounting, or within financial accounting) is largely restricted to the staff within those sub- disciplines and there is a lack of awareness of the knowledge and skills developed in the courses run by staff in other sub-disciplines. As an example, the Panel expects that the financial accounting staff do not understand the course progression or skills covered in management accounting, and vice versa, and likewise across the sub-disciplines within the whole Accounting Programme. This problem was less visible within the Commercial Law programme, which has more links outside the School of Accounting and Commercial law due to their courses having a higher degree of collaboration with other parts of the Faculty. Infusion of current business challenges into the Majors The Panel believes that the offering in Accounting and Commercial Law are fairly described as traditional programmes, that offer a foundation in the base knowledge and skills that have been required in the profession for the last decade. This is not meant as a criticism or as praise, merely an observation that the majority of the material taught in the programmes is focused on the fundamental skills, as described in the minimum requirements for accreditations by professional bodies. Submissions to the Panel indicated that a curriculum review was begun in 2019/20 and looked at the 100-level courses, and will look at 200-300 level soon (as it was deferred due to the Covid-19 outbreak). This has led to some changes in the 100-level courses, including the worthwhile change allowing additional time (e.g., around three weeks) for some contemporary issues to be covered such as sustainability accounting. The Panel commends the progress made on the curriculum review so far, and affirms the desire expressed to them by the School to continue with this review. The Panel formally commends: Commendation 2: The Programme began a review of the Accounting programme, including the integration of sustainability which is an important topic to cover. The Panel affirms their agenda of programme renewal and encourages this to be on a timely basis early in the next year.

10

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

While the Panel affirms this review – particularly the integration of sustainability – as useful, it understands that this is not part of an ongoing and holistic model for introducing current business challenges/issues as it is tied to the interests/decision of the lecturing staff. The Panel considers that more effort needs to be made to renew the curriculum to embrace the revolutionary developments in business, that relate to accounting and commercial law (as examples; blockchain, data analytics, cybersecurity, public sector, integrated reporting, stakeholder demands on the audit profession). It is vital that relevant new developments are covered and it is equally vital that students and employers are able to clearly identify them. Gradates should be able to demonstrate their knowledge of modern topics and business developments to employers. The ongoing curriculum review should continue, and keep this in mind as an important factor. In addition, the programmes would benefit from making clear how in the future they will identify modern business topics and to what extent they will be covered. The Panel suggests that there should be a systematic way of doing so the programme can easily and effectively adapt to the future. Recommendation 2: Continue with the curriculum review that began in 2019, with a view towards including a structured/planned inclusion of the ongoing innovations in business within Accounting and Commercial Law.

Infusion of current business challenges into the MPA The Panel feels that the infusion of current business challenges/issues is particularly lacking from the Master of Professional Accounting. The Panel believes the programme is delivering the base skills and knowledge required by the accrediting bodies for the cross-crediting to the professional qualification, but this may not be fit-for-purpose in preparing Masters-level students for the modern business world. The Panel believes that there is far too much commitment to the professional bodies' exact requirements, which has been at the expense of innovation and modern business challenges/issues. The professional standards should be viewed as a minima of skills and knowledge that are developed in the qualification, and that modern technologies such as information security, blockchain and other areas of accounting (public sector, environmental, wellbeing) that are becoming increasing prevalent in the business sector should be a part of the qualification as well. Recommendation 3: Review the MPA in order to continue to meet the needs of professional accreditation, but to also provide a foundation for constant renewal to better manage the innovations and challenges in modern business.

Continuation of dual delivery/blended learning In the course of this review, the Panel has recognised that staff (and students) have been going through a period of notable stress bought on by the effects of Covid-19 on the University Education system, and specifically at Victoria University of Wellington where dual delivery (both physical delivery and digital delivery) has been utilised to allow students to continue studying. The Panel commends all members of the Accounting and Commercial Law academic community for their endurance over this time. This has included dealing with challenges brought about by University-led system failures (such as a recent failure of ProctorU during

11

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a online exams), that are not the fault of the School. The Panel commends the School of Accounting and Commercial Law for: Commendation 3: Under the circumstances created by the Covid-19 situation, the staff have done a great job providing the dual delivery model and working through its associated challenges.

It is the understanding of the Panel that the University has decided to ensure that dual delivery (both in-person delivery and online delivery) continues in 2021. Whilst this decision carries a yearlong impact, the Panel wishes to encourage the programmes to consider how it can best deliver material in a post-Covid world. It may be that online delivery remains a priority for the programmes, or it may be that returning to face-to-face delivery will provide a better learning experience for students; the Panel does not want to direct the programmes in either regard. The programmes should take the question of delivery into account as part of the curriculum review process. Depending on the decisions made as a programme, there may be longer-term changes that need to be made to some parts of the programme to facilitate the chosen style of delivery. Any decision should be made strategically, with a view to how to best provide education for students going into a complex, innovative business environment. The Panel recommends to the Programmes (and the School as a whole) the following: Recommendation 4: Incorporate into the curriculum review a strategic decision about how delivery of the programmes (online and/or in person) will occur in the longer term.

Successes in the programmes The team-teaching approach used in the Programmes, which allows for the sub-disciplines to share knowledge on teaching and research within their teams, is working well, and the Panel encourages this to continue in future as the programme continues to develop. The Panel commends the programmes for: Commendation 4: Team teaching which works well in sharing content and fostering a collegial work environment between staff.

Teaching in the programmes appeared to the Panel to be informed by staff research and interests, and the programmes also have a reputation for strong research performance (such as in the recent PBRF). The Panel was also impressed by the support available for staff research activity, including an appropriate amount of conference leave. The Panel advises that this should be maintained through to the end of the global Covid-19 so that normal activity in this space can resume. The Panel also learned through this review that staff are generally supported in maintaining their professional knowledge, and staff felt that the issue of professional development was a topic that could be easily approached with line management. The School is also active in supporting staff to maintain industry recognition, such as CPA Australia or CAANZ registration. The Panel would like to commend the programmes and School as follows: Commendation 5: Programmes have a strong performance in research which is informing the teaching programme. Staff are supported in engaging in research (e.g., international conferences

12

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

and research excellence) and are also supported in their professional development (e.g., industry recognition)

Support for Student Engagement and Retention ToR Domain 3 – How does the programme use information and feedback in order to improve? The Panel identified two levels of support for student retention that currently exist in the programmes. The first level is at the teaching level, where the academic delivering the lecture or co- ordinating the course will take it upon themselves, as a good practitioner of learning and teaching, to engage with students, follow up on those who do not submit early assignments, and encourage top students to continue their studies in the programme. The Panel recognises the good practice that many staff are undertaking in providing this service. The other level is at the level of the university, through initiatives like student learning support services, and targeted university interventions for equity groups, first year students and students requiring disability support. This kind of support is available to students, and the Panel understands that some students are referred to these services, and other students take it upon themselves to get support from these services. The Panel has identified a problem for some students, in the vacuum of support between these two levels. As far as the Panel is aware, there is no systematic or coordinated process at the level of the School or the Faculty for identifying students in need of engagement, retention or support, and no guidance for how to engage with students and/or refer them on when they are identified. Some students are currently referred to university services, but the Panel perceived a particular gap where students who are not Māori, Pasifika or in need of disability support, are not automatically directed to appropriate support services. The Panel heard that there is a project underway to address this by the University, through the Student Success Programme (SSP), but was unclear on the details of how this system would work. As such the Panel’s suggestions in this space must be considered alongside the result of the SSP project, which may overlap with the Panel’s advice. The Panel advises that the ideal resolution will address both of the missing elements that are posing a problem for students; 1. The introduction at the Faculty or University level of an automatic identification system will free up staff time to engage and support those students who need help (instead of spending time identifying them), as well as reducing the risk of students ‘slipping through the cracks. 2. The introduction of guidance on how to best support students under different circumstances, such as in the form of a student engagement framework, will allow staff to ensure that the support provided can come from the right place – whether that is central university services, the more specific knowledge held with the School, or other sources that staff may not currently be aware of. Both of these approaches are needed, and are not exclusive – the ideal outcome of activity in this space would be a framework that successfully guides staff in responding to the automatic identification of students needing support. The Panel advises that student engagement and retention will be improved through the introduction of both an automated system of identification for students who need support, and through guidance on how to provide the right support or referrals for those students. The ongoing university Student Success Programme project may align with the Panel’s suggestion.

13

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Whilst there is activity that needs to occur at the Faculty or University levels, an achievable and important goal for the programmes will be to reinforce the knowledge they have of the university support services, and be as active as possible in ensuring students receive support from university services in addition to continuing engagement with the staff involved in teaching. Recommendation 5: Teaching staff should continue to support student engagement, retention and support, as well as further develop knowledge of the support services available to students from the central university to ensure they are actively used by students in the Accounting and Commercial Law programmes.

Programme’s Community ToR Domain 4 – How well does the programme foster a sense of community for its students (undergraduate and postgraduate), and staff, that reaches across the programme? In terms of the community within the School, the Panel noted a strong commitment towards a good student experience. At an overall level, whilst the Panel has identified areas for improvement, this should not detract from the quality of programmes and teaching that is being provided. The Panel would therefore like to commend the following: Commendation 6: The commitment to student success and the quality of the learning experience within the School.

The Commercial Law programme was noted by the Panel as being well connected across the Faculty, and although this is facilitated by their contribution of material towards the different majors in the Faculty, the work of the staff in having those links and engaging with other programmes stands the programme in good stead. The Panel commends: Commendation 7: The Commercial Law Programme working to successfully engage with and integrate teaching across the faculty.

The Panel would like to begin by praising the School for an initial two-day retreat, and suggests that these continue as an excellent way of allowing staff to work together on important issues with the Programmes and within the School. The Panel also heard that the future of these retreats was uncertain, as they may not continue, or if they do may continue as one day events. From the information available to the Panel, the two-day retreat provided a much stronger platform for these important discussions. Recommendation 6: Continue to hold School retreats that allow staff to spend two days focusing on issues of importance to the Programmes and the School especially encouraging the School to work as a team.

Based on the discussions the Panel held with staff in the School, it believes there may be some minor issues of hierarchy that affect the academic community of the programmes. For example, in the Panel’s meetings with staff, at each level of seniority (lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors/professors) that staff newer to the university seemed somewhat reluctant to speak to the Panel leaving the responses to questions to the staff who had been there longer. The Panel does not want to overstate the impact of this – staff are 14

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a generally still working together and are acting collegially. The Panel found that, given the impact of the global Covid-19 situation, staff were in notably good morale. However, this may be a symptom of something else the Panel has observed. The programme seems to primarily be functioning as a collection of individuals. Staff, particularly within the sub-disciplines in accounting, are working alone in their academic roles. This suggests that nurturing a more holistic team approach would be hugely beneficial, which the continuation of the annual two-day retreats would help with. Lastly, the Panel also suggests that the Teaching, Learning and Equity Committee re-organise its name to place learning first, in line with educational norms. This helps emphasise the place of the learner in discussion around education that occurs in such committees. Recommendation 7: Adjust the name of the Teaching, Learning and Equity Committee to place ‘Learning’ first (i.e., the Learning, Teaching and Equity Committee).

Bi-cultural and Multicultural Integration ToR Domain 5 – How well does the programme demonstrate commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi by including Māori focus in its design, delivery, assessment and evaluation? ToR Domain 6 – How effectively does the programme provide opportunities for Pasifika students to engage in their learning and progress to further study? The Panel believes that the School needs to do more in the way of progressing towards the integration of bi-cultural and multicultural values into its programmes. The Panel was pleased to hear that the School of Accounting and Commercial Law has taken some action towards increasing the competence and confidence of its staff in understanding and teaching Mātauranga Māori. Professional development in this area has been undertaken, driven by key staff members within and in charge of the programmes. The Panel understands that activity to date has included an 8-week Te Reo Māori course, the first three parts of the Universities Te Hapai program, and ongoing content review by the Teaching, Learning and Equity Committee. The Panel commends the School for this activity: Commendation 8: The inclusion of Māori curriculum content has been attempted with appropriate case studies and examples in Accounting, and the Commercial Law programme has a stronger embedding of it with their teaching of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This is a foundation which the Panel advises the School to continue developing. The Panel notes this is particularly important for the Accounting Programme, as firstly there are a majority of non-New Zealand born staff members who have not had the upbringing in the country to help ground confidence in this area, and secondly the future importance of Iwi- lead business to the NZ economy. The Panel recommends that the Programmes: Recommendation 8: Continue with the development of staff skills in Te Reo and Mātauranga Māori. The Panel suggests this might be done by;

a) Engaging with the Āwhina programme, and having staff involved with all the stages of student engagement from recruitment through retention and graduation

15

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

b) Focus on recruitment of Māori students into postgraduate studies, including through the use of summer Scholarships, or through joint supervision into other programmes across the university

An area where the programmes have not made any progress is in the area of Pasifika. The programme appears to the Panel to have prioritised its attention toward Māori students over the last several years, but now it is time to increase the scope of this focus to Pasifika students as well. The Panel advises that the same strategy should not necessarily be used for Pasifika students as has been used by Māori students, as they have a different range of backgrounds and concerns. The Panel suggests that the programmes engage with the office of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor Pasifika and the Pasifika Students Success Team for activity that staff could undertake to improve Pasifika content, and Pasifika student recruitment and retention. The Panel heard that there is some valuable tracking of the progress and success of Pasifika students done by the Pasifika Student Success Team, and suggests that this could be engaged with by the School to inform their activity. The Panel therefore recommends that the programmes: Recommendation 9: Begin work on increasing the amount and quality of Pasifika content in the Programmes and the recruitment and retention of Pasifika Students in the programmes.

The Panel has made these recommendations due to the increasing need for skills in dealing with Māori and Pasifika people in the business environment. Graduates of the programme will, in the majority, go on to work for companies and organisations in New Zealand where they will need a wide awareness around the different cultures in businesses, including Māori and Pasifika.

16

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a

Advice to the Dean The Panel made a number of observations and findings over the course of the review that have an impact on the students in the Accounting and Commercial Law programmes, but which cannot be addressed effectively by action from only within the School of Accounting and Commercial Law. The Panel has therefore added this section to advise the Dean of the Faculty of its findings and the ideas of the Panel that might help to address them.

Challenges of the Core BCom courses ToR Domain 2 – How does the programme ensure that students are able to achieve the goals of the programme? The Panel understands that there are around seven compulsory 100-level courses taught by the schools across the Wellington School of Business and Government. These seven courses make up a common ‘core’ of the Bachelor of Commerce, and give students exposure to all of the main components of business. Accounting and Commercial Law staff the Panel spoke to indicated that a review of the BCom core was due to occur soon, given it had been a few years since the last such exercise. The Panel believes it has identified a challenge in the BCom core that affects the programmes under review and that potentially affects all other programmes in the Faculty as well; the Panel did not see evidence that the BCom core courses are mapped to the outcomes of the Accounting and Commercial Law majors. The Panel could not determine how students or staff would make links between the core courses and the graduate attributes of the BCom majors offered by the programmes in this review. Furthermore, the majority of staff the Panel spoke to were unaware of the content taught in the BCom Core from outside the School (i.e., the courses other than 100-level ACCY and FCOM 111) and nor were they aware of what skills and knowledge are taught by other parts of the Faculty. This creates a barrier for the programmes to understand what skills their graduates will have, particularly those acquired from the BCom Core courses, and also leads to risks that there is little or no consistency in what students are exposed to across the BCom core. This is leading to potential problems including: 1. Inadequate preparation of students to understand and engage with modern innovations (for example, being totally unfamiliar with emerging technologies like blockchain, cybersecurity, cryptocurrency, ethical requirements, sustainability, bi- cultural knowledge, data visualisation (and so on)), 2. Duplication of content (for example, if multiple schools are raising the same contemporary issue in each 100-level core course, students might learn too much about bitcoin, and not enough about bi-cultural knowledge) The Panel suggests that the Dean and Faculty look at the design of the BCom (or continue with any plans to do so that were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic). This should include ensuring it provides clear links between the 100-level shared core courses and the graduate outcomes of the various majors and the Graduate Profile of the University as well as looking at consistency and coordination across the different courses. All disciplines that are part of the Bachelor of Commerce should be keeping updated of the changing innovations in the business world. But coordination is vital in this space to support the Faculty as a whole to ensure modern business challenges are covered appropriately. One way of doing so that the Panel is aware of would be a dedicated role that works for the Faculty in this space. This could be a new role that is in charge of the BCom core courses at the Faculty level. Such a role would have the support of the PVC and Dean to address the challenges of the content that is separated across the 100-level courses in the Faculty, as well

17

ACCY-COML Programmes Review AB21/24a as how it maps to graduate outcomes and covers contemporary issues within the core 100- level courses. The Panel understands the financial situation of the University makes a new role like this unlikely at present, but wishes to indicate that such a role would provide value whenever it can be supported. Stakeholder Engagement ToR Domain 7 – How effectively is the Programme linked to and responsive to its relevant academic, social and professional communities? Although this programme review itself did not highlight any industry involvement, the Panel is aware from their other experiences with the Programmes that they have a good reputation with industry. As such, the Panel is not advising on how to improving their reputation, but instead how to be part of a broader, strategic effort to improve perception of the disciplines. As staff in the programme are aware, the discipline of accounting (less so commercial law) is being increasingly dismissed as a profession with the rise of AI and other technologies that may be perceived by some as replacing the need for accountants. This narrative, which the Panel (and programme) know to be false, is still impacting the programme and its ability to recruit and retain students. However, the process of refuting and changing the narrative will need action from the School, the Faculty and the wider profession. The Panel believes a formal strategy or communications strategy is needed from the Faculty to address this false narrative. The staff in the School of Accounting and Commercial Law will have a key role in supporting and implementing this strategy, and will need to be heavily involved in its design. But the wider faculty – the Victoria Business School – will also need to be involved in supporting and acting on the strategy. This includes (but is in no way limited to) the more effective communications and marketing available at the faculty level. The Panel understands that the staff of the School of Accounting and Commercial Law have a number of relationships with businesses and professional bodies, and suggests that these connections should also be utilised in the strategy. Collaborating with professional bodies as well as business leaders will be a crucial part of correcting the narrative. The Panel suggests that the Dean work with the School to create a strategy to address the narrative against the accounting profession that is affecting recruitment and retention in the programme.

18

AB21/24b

Programme Review Implementation Plan

Review of Accounting and Commercial Law Programmes

Implementation Plan Date: Recorded by: Development & Approval Head of School 19 April 2021 Marita Lotz, School Manager PVC/Dean 30 April 2021 Brenda Bongiovanni Faculty Board (or equivalent) 19 May 2021 Brenda Bongiovanni Provost 9 June 2021 Edward Schofield Academic Board

Recommendations

No. Recommendation Response

1. Ensure that: Accepted a) Courses are linked to the desired outcomes of the BCom majors in Accounting/Commercial Law and the university Graduate Profile. b) These links are clearly visible and communicated to staff and students.

2. Continue with the curriculum review that began in Accepted 2019, with a view towards including a structured/planned inclusion of the ongoing innovations in business within Accounting and Commercial Law.

3. Review the MPA in order to continue to meet the Accepted needs of professional accreditation, but to also provide a foundation for constant renewal to better manage the innovations and challenges in modern business.

4. Incorporate into the curriculum review a strategic Accepted decision about how delivery of the programmes (online and/or in person) will occur in the longer term.

5. Teaching staff should continue to support student Accepted engagement, retention and support, as well as

1

Programme Review Implementation Plan AB21/24b

No. Recommendation Response further develop knowledge of the support services available to students from the central university to ensure they are actively used by students in the Accounting and Commercial Law programmes.

6. Continue to hold School retreats that allow staff to Accepted spend two days focusing on issues of importance to the Programmes and the School especially encouraging the School to work as a team.

7. Adjust the name of the Teaching, Learning and Accepted Equity Committee to place ‘Learning’ first (i.e., the Learning, Teaching and Equity Committee).

8. Continue with the development of staff skills in Te Accepted Reo and Mātauranga Māori. The Panel suggests this might be done by; a) Engaging with the Āwhina programme, and having staff involved with all the stages of student engagement from recruitment through retention and graduation. b) Focus on recruitment of Māori students into postgraduate studies, including through the use of summer scholarships, or through joint supervision into other programmes across the university.

9. Begin work on increasing the amount and quality of Accepted Pasifika content in the Programmes and the recruitment and retention of Pasifika Students in the programmes.

2

Programme Review Implementation Plan AB21/24b

Implementation details

Recommendation 1 Responsibility: Head of School/ Chair of Learning, Teaching and Equity Committee

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School will follow the suggestion from the Academic End 2022 Committee on this. The advice is as follows: The Committee want to make sure the School is aware that a Curriculum Management System has recently been approved for development for the university, and part of that system will include a tool to assist in carrying out that mapping. The Committee advises that the program should engage with the system to do this once it becomes available to Schools, which is loosely expected in the next 10-12 months.

Recommendation 2 Responsibility: Head of School

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School will continue its curriculum review to build on the End 2022 changes which have already been implemented at 100 level.

Recommendation 3 Responsibility: Head of School/ MPA Director

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School is preparing a set of proposals which will, inter End 2022 alia, address these recommendations. This forms part of recommendation 2.

Recommendation 4 Responsibility: Head of School

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School will engage with any determination or initiative End 2022 made by the University and thanks the academic Committee for the following advice which it will follow up on: The Committee wants to ensure the School is aware that there are ongoing discussions about dual delivery at the university. SLT is intending to look at dual delivery and make a strategic decision about where it should continue and where it may

3

Programme Review Implementation Plan AB21/24b

prefer reverting to face-to-face only, once the government’s Covid-19 requirements to potentially offer remotely are relaxed. The Centre for Academic Development is also working with programmes to identify where online or face- to-face teaching is more effective.

Recommendation 5 Responsibility: Head of School

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School will continue to support student engagement, End 2021 retention and support. There is a regular programme of presentations by representatives of University support services at monthly School meetings to ensure that staff are aware of current and emerging developments in these areas. The School also will follow the advice (below) from the Academic Committee: The Committee advise the School that it should continue with the recommendation, but that part of it will include developing their understanding of the changes resulting from the SSP project.

Recommendation 6 Responsibility: Head of School

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School is keen to continue to hold retreats subject to Ongoing finance being available.

Recommendation 7 Responsibility: Head of School

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date Change made April 2021 19 April 2021

Recommendation 8 Responsibility: Head of School/MPA Director/Undergraduate Program Director

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date The School will engage with all faculty and university Ongoing initiatives relating to the recommendation.

4

Programme Review Implementation Plan AB21/24b

In addition, Jessica Lai (SACL) and Jesse Pirini (SOM) are commencing a project to develop a framework for identifying and including an Ao Māori (Māori perspective) in teaching content and activities in each course. The recent ACCY 100 level restructuring included a commitment to offering tutorials for Maori students.

In addition the Head of School and Programme Directors met with the Māori and Pasifika student engagement advisors in March to discuss interaction with the School.

Recommendation 9 Responsibility: Head of School MPA Director/Undergraduate Program Director

Action(s) Anticipated Actual completion date completion date

The recent ACCY 100 level restructuring includes a Ongoing commitment to offering tutorials for Pasifika students. In addition the Head of School and Programme Directors met with the Māori and Pasifika student engagement advisors in March to discuss interaction with the School.

The School will engage with the office of the Assistant Vice- Chancellor Pasifika and the Pasifika Students Success Team for activity that staff could undertake to improve Pasifika content, and Pasifika student recruitment and retention.

5

Programme Review Implementation Plan AB21/24b

6

Victoria University of Wellington Academic Board Minutes of the meeting held at 1pm on 20 April 2021 in the Council Chamber

19.21 Apologies, welcomes and farewells The apologies were taken as read; no further apologies were given. A welcome was given to Ekaterina Kovtun: Victoria International student representative (equity officer) and a farewell and thanks were given to Julia Innocente-Jones whose last day is 23 April.

20.21 Part B of the agenda Item 9, the minutes, and item 12, proposed 2023 academic year dates, were moved from Part B to Part A of the agenda. 21.21 Minutes of the Academic Board meeting held on 16 March 2021 The following changes were requested for Item 11 of the minutes of the Academic Board meeting held on 16 March 2021: [1] After the sentence in para 2: add “and to correct prior characterisations of the staff response to the project only as being 'diverse', whereas in fact the responses were predominantly opposed." [2] In para 3 - delete “and chaotic” from the first sentence. [3] At the end of para 3: add “Moreover, there was a repeated view that the conclusions of the document were not supported by evidence, and that the project as a whole had led to a loss of trust in SLT.” The 16 March 2021 minutes were approved with the proposed changes. 22.21 Proposed 2023 academic year dates AB21/18 A student member queried the justification for the changes in the Academic Year dates, noting that there were discussions two years previously where it was agreed to remove the Trimester 3 assessment period. There were concerns that shortening the assessment period at the end of Trimester 2, would disadvantage students studying in that Trimester. In response, the Provost explained that efforts were being made to regularise Trimester 3 so that there were sufficient teaching weeks. The extra week break after Trimester 2 assessment period was intended to relieve workload pressures for both staff and students. Professor Brock noted that the extra week at the end of Trimester 2 helped with accommodations around the Christmas closedown period, added an extra break for students (in response to requests for that) and relieved pressure on staff workloads. Faculty Management Teams had been consulted. A member noted that the heavy reliance on examinations exacerbated the issue of assessment period length. Another member questioned the Law grade entry deadlines stating that the

1

reduction of the assessment period increased workload pressure. It was further noted that it was a priority for Trimester 3 teaching to occur in two 6-week blocks either side of Christmas which also inhibited possible flexibility with Trimester start dates and duration. There was discussion on the degree of student consultation in the process. It was agreed to further discuss the Law grade entry deadlines outside of the meeting. 23.21 Oral report from the Vice-Chancellor Professor Guilford noted that EFTS have remained relatively stable. Domestic EFTS are 1360 ahead of the same period last year. Māori and Pasifika EFTS are 232 and 167 EFTS respectively ahead of the same period last year. International EFTS are 469 behind this time last year. The University is currently well placed to achieve the -$5 million deficit year-end budget target. The University is in a stronger position to meet the 2022 goal of $15 million surplus; however, there is still a high level of risk for 2022 international student EFTS with the border controls not relaxing. The Vice-Chancellors recently met with the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission to raise concerns. The International student visa situation has deteriorated and MIQ facilities may be retired rather than being utilised for the sector. There are no indications the government will restore pre-COVID settings in the short term. The situation is particularly adversely affecting the private training sector. The Vice-Chancellors will keep in dialogue with Government.

24.21 Oral report from the Provost Professor Larner provided an update on the following points: • Academic Pathways: we are now at the tail end of two of the three processes for the new Teaching Intensive Academic Pathway that includes staff on permanent senior tutor contracts and expressions of interest from academic staff currently on the Principal Academic Pathway. We will be appointing someone to lead the new pathway and develop a community of academic practice. • Student Success Programme: the programme is moving into the consultation process around the establishment of Tītoko – Centre for Student Success This is a two-phase process. The first phase will include release of a comprehensive change proposal on 29 April that will outline an operating model including proposed functions, the relationships, role types and role descriptions, and the forms of engagement involved in the new way of delivering student services. After organisational agreement, a second phase will involve detailed HR work regarding teams and individual staff members. Depending on how phase one progresses, we are due for Tītoko to go live in August. This will be an ongoing careful iterative process. Vanessa Pye is leading SSP well. This is an exciting opportunity to improve student experience and work life for student- facing professional staff. Feedback on the change proposal is welcomed. Special thanks were given to Janet Fletcher for her work on SSP. • CAD: has been working effectively through its new Hive structure. We are now formalising the new way of working and structure. This formalises what is already occurring, and also includes moving a 0.4FTE vacant role to the Academic Office. In response to a request for clarification regarding the part time role moving to the Academic Office, it was explained that this related to the gathering of teaching and course feedback after Linda Bowden had left CAD.

2

The Provost clarified that the appointment for a lead in the Teaching Intensive Pathway would be an academic seconded to the role. In response to comments about workload, the Provost reiterated that the Teaching Intensive Pathway was partly designed as a response to academic staff workload pressures. It was expected that senior staff working in the Teaching Intensive Pathway would play a leading role in innovating pedagogy, and programme and curriculum development relieving some pressure on staff in the Principal Academic Pathway. A member was concerned that the Provost had referred to course feedback as “quality assurance” stating that while student feedback played an important part in course development and teaching development over time, it should not be referred to as quality assurance. The Provost acknowledged the concern but said that quality assurance was also developmental and this is reflected in operations such as programme reviews that are also managed in the Academic Office. Another member asked for confirmation that the changes would not alter access to the results and that processes wouldn’t alter. It was confirmed that this is simply an administrative role change to a function and the process was governed by a policy and the existing system would remain unchanged. Generally, the policy is overdue for revision and is on the timetable for policy review, but that would involve wider consultation and engagement. In response to a question of whether VUWSA is considered to be directly impacted within the SSP change proposal release, the Provost confirmed that she was referring to staff impacted directly by the changes. 25.21 Oral report from Tumu Ahurei (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Māori) Professor Higgins provided an update on the following points noting that further progress has been made towards our Māori Strategic Outcomes Framework – Mai i te Iho ki te Pae which is focused on: • Supporting Māori students and staff; • Encouraging Māori research activity and Māori learning and teaching; • Engaging with Māori communities; and • Enhancing the University’s processes to be more culturally inclusive, including advancing the living Pā.

• Enrolments: as of 19 April, Māori student enrolment numbers sit at 1,948 EFTS reaching our 12% target of a Māori student cohort, which is 237 EFTS ahead in comparison to this time last year. • Māori academic staff: two new Māori staff have joined the University this year – senior lecturer Denise Blake in the School of Health and Associate Professor Spencer Lilley in the School of Information Management. • Te Hāpai: our Māori professional development programme has started well this year with nine workshops held since February, attracting 199 participants. • Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Māori: the office met with our Taihonoa Māori community partners, Ngāti Whatua Ōrakei, in Auckland to discuss extending the scope of our relationship to include direct support of their Māori language revitalisation initiatives, joint internships and research opportunities. Last week, we also introduced representatives from Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea to staff from

3

the School of Engineering and Computer Science and the School of Biological Science, to explore joint research opportunities. Thanks to our co-hosts. • Te Whānau o Te Herenga Waka: held a kawe mate memorial service for former students and staff who had recently passed away. The service affirmed their relationships with the marae. Relatives of the late Piri Sciascia, Lady June Mead, Hema Temara, Tiahuia and Neil Gray placed a photo of their deceased loved ones on the wharenui before it closes next week. • The Living Pā: is progressing well. Occupants of 42-50 Kelburn Parade (Āwhina and Te Kawa a Maui) have nearly completed their decant to new or temporary spaces. A whakamoe ceremony to decommission the buildings at 42-50 Kelburn Parade and close Te Tumu Herenga Waka until 2023, is scheduled for 26 April. Anyone wanting to attend the whakamoe ceremony should RSVP to Linda Bowden and gather outside 42 Kelburn Parade by 5.25am Monday 26 April. Professor Higgins reiterated her willingness to work with faculties and schools to talk about how they can progress the Māori Strategic Outcomes Framework.

26.21 Oral report from the Vice-Provost (Academic) • CUAP: Round One opens 1 May. CUAP have announced some process changes that will give some flexibility for us regarding notifications and Graduating Year Reviews. The Academic Office will be providing Associate Deans with more details. • Delegated authority: there has been a communication to staff regarding who will be picking up the various responsibilities within Pam Thorburn’s portfolio following her retirement earlier this month. Please contact Karen McKinnon or your Faculty communications staff for further information. • AQA Academic Audit: the self-review phase for the academic audit is well underway. Communications will be coming out later this week in University News. • Course Evaluations: the Vice Chancellor’s column this month noted that the University will run course evaluations automatically this year between 24 May and 4 June. This will be done for courses offered in the normal teaching period. Course coordinators wanting to select their own dates and questions should set up their course evaluations as normal, by no later than May 15. This will give students the advantage of completing the course feedback for all of their courses at the same time if they wish. Please note courses run outside of the normal teaching period (such as block courses) will not require a course evaluation. There will be clear communications to students through the student newsletter and on digital screens. There was a discussion regarding response rates in which the Vice-Provost encouraged course coordinators to provide time for students to complete evaluations in class. A member suggested feedback could increase if it were possible for students to complete multiple course evaluations in one response; Professor Brock confirmed he would investigate that option. It was also confirmed that this pertains to course evaluations only, teaching evaluations are not compulsory and there is no promotion round this year.

27.21 Oral report from the Vice-Provost (Research) Professor Hyland congratulated Dr Christopher Cornwall, School of Biological Sciences, for receiving a Te Herenga Waka Research Excellence Award and for being awarded the Prime

4

Minister’s Emerging Scientist Prize last week. It was also noted that Te Herenga Waka staff have been recipients in four of the last five Prime Minister’s Science awards. Professor Hyland then discussed the following points: • Visa exemption process: the Visa exemption process for essential researchers is now working well, and Immigration NZ resolved issues they were previously having for Doctoral students coming in on this category. The research office has set up an email that also links to a FAQs page: [email protected] All applications should go through the research office. • Joint EDI proposal to MBIE, with UNZ RC and Te Kāhui Amokura: The University has joined a Universities New Zealand proposal to the MBIE Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Fund announced in March. The proposal was prepared by Te Kāhui Amokura (the DVCs Māori) and the DVCs Research groups. “Piki Ake” is a programme aimed at redesigning the trajectory for Māori researchers at New Zealand universities. It will broaden and strengthen the opportunities and pathways for Māori researchers, while at the same time maintaining a focus on excellence and quality. • Doctoral Admissions: focus groups are running this week for the redesign of Scholarships and Doctoral Admissions and FGR processes. SDAO is running two focus groups later this week to review the doctoral admissions and scholarships processes with a particular focus on streamlining decision making and minimising time required by both academic and administrative staff. FGR is setting up a working group to review the doctoral candidature processes, with similar aims, and is also looking to move to online processing for the most common processes. Volunteers have been sought for these groups but, if Heads of School or others have a particular interest in engaging with any of these issues, then they should contact Amanda Fraser in SDAO or Neil Dodgson in FGR with suggestions for people who would be useful to sit on these groups.

28.21 Provost’s Forum: a discussion on the Curriculum Framework. AB21/12 The Vice-Provost (Academic) noted that work will soon begin on Phase II of the Curriculum Framework Project, focussing on undergraduate qualifications. This follows the completion of Phase I of the Curriculum Framework Project, which focused on postgraduate qualifications, the driver being CUAP’s introduction of the 180-point masters degree and how it fits with the 120- and 240-point masters degrees and honours degrees. Phase II of the Project will focus on Undergraduate degree programmes, especially Bachelor degree programmes. The Undergraduate Curriculum Framework will describe at a high level what our undergraduate qualifications are (or should be) like and the components of those qualifications. Discussion of courses and how they should be delivered (e.g., block or standard course, exams or no exams, fully online or blended, dual mode or single mode, assessment, etc.) is out of scope. The overwhelming majority of our students are enrolled in undergraduate qualifications: 80% of domestic students and 75% of international students. Consequently, the University would likely get a lot of benefit from focusing on the undergraduate curriculum. Two drivers motivate us to develop an undergraduate curriculum framework for the University: curriculum complexity, and the opportunity to leverage areas of distinctiveness. The former will enhance

5

the student experience, reduce professional staff workload pressures, and enable a greater understanding of our offerings. It will also allow us to enhance interdisciplinary work and reduce duplication. The latter will enable us to better leverage our areas of distinctiveness, our endowments of place, our values and our iho. Also, there is a changed context and direction of the Strategic Plan and Futures work looking to 2025, to which we want to align. A member commented that the cost of ensuring uniform point values for courses across our degrees could be prohibitive. Professor Brock confirmed that a cost-benefit analysis would have to be undertaken to confirm whether this would be in scope. The project will be data driven and with that we can evaluate the issues of biggest impact. A steering group will be looking at these issues. Another member mentioned that a lot of work had been completed on previous projects such as the 2006 pathways, 2011 review of undergraduate curriculum, and BA review and they asked where that work would fit in. Various members noted that in some cases the implementation of projects had not been optimal and how would successful implementation be assured in this case, how would improvements be embedded and how would processes be put into practice? Professor Brock acknowledged it was difficult to embed outputs and that if there are additional ideas than what is in the paper he would appreciate feedback. He also noted that excellent work has already been done but previous projects had been undertaken in isolation so there was no consistency of approach to developing degrees, and this project provides a framework. A member noted, in response to question five of the paper, that size and shape of degrees should be looked at: of the 13 degrees there were 8 or 9 different combinations of 100-200- 300 level points and it would be good to standardise those. It was also mentioned, in response to what is missing, is the question of targeting of courses to international or domestic markets given the impact of COVID and what the future may look like. There was also comment that the University offered lots of choice which was not always a bad thing; therefore, there should be clarity around what complexity meant. There were concerns voiced over the meaning of consistency; noting that variation has come from local needs and these need to be considered. Professor Brock acknowledged this point saying it was important that we should get the balance correct with real value and significant impact making sure we are not colliding with local need. Regular feedback will be sought from multiple stakeholders throughout the project. It was also noted that perhaps what we offered was not conveyed clearly enough through the website and in literature; and that students would benefit from the development of standard pathways and that prospectuses, now discontinued, used to contain this information. A member commented that in their opinion graduates were not intellectually well rounded and they often find out late in their degree that they are not studying what they want. Despite our efforts, there is nothing that really distinguishes our university other than our location. With these thoughts in mind the curriculum would benefit from a complete overhaul so every student that attended the University has a broad education from various disciplines and this would make us distinctive in New Zealand. It was also mentioned that our distinctiveness could be enhanced if we re-looked at the concept of curriculum as there are knowledge systems that see this differently and it could frame the discussion. A student member noted that any change in point values required consideration of student workload impacts and this was confirmed by Professor Brock, as was the acknowledgement

6

that the framework development needed to consider other discussions occurring such as programme primacy. Alignment with the programme primacy project should be achieved with the appointment of Paul Teesdale-Spittle on the steering group who is also the primary point person in the programme primacy project. Discussions on data included the note that data can be obtained from other universities, a case in point being the Melbourne model. It was mentioned that student success should be strongly articulated as a driver which also aligns to why we are undertaking this project at this time. It was also stated that a greater emphasis needed to be put on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and on raising the profile of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the document which would benefit the outcomes for Māori students. It was important to consider the Graduate profile in context of the Strategic plan and Te Herenga Waka resilience plan and the aspects of sustainability, civic engagement and wellbeing. The Vice-Chancellor concluded that he would like the University to take an ambitious approach to the new framework, and that the outcomes should be embedded.

29.21 CUAP Round One Proposals AB21/13a, AB21/13b The two proposals were approved for submission to CUAP. The request for access to Student Allowances and the Student Loan Scheme for new programmes and associated double-degree programmes was approved.

1. BC/1, BCom/3 New major in Marketing Communication for the Bachelor of Communication Hooper/De Bruin/Guilford

2. MA/5 Amend the general requirements for the MA to reflect that the degree will be by thesis only after other proposals to amend the MA have been approved. De Bruin/Guilford Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Associate Professor Joost De Bruin introduced the first proposal, explaining that this was a successful collaboration that will make the degree more competitive. This is the only NZ Communication degree without a Marketing major and there have been multiple requests by students for this. Head of School of Marketing and International Business, Associate Professor Val Hooper, noted that this major offers students, who are interested in Marketing, with a less quantitative option as it looks at the execution of communication rather than statistical analysis. The major contains two new courses, Strategic Public Relations and Crisis Communications which align strongly with our capital city location providing a more competitive edge. In response to a comment that the inclusion of MARK 301 allows students to credit the course for majors in both degrees, it was noted that the MARK major requires 60 points at 300 level and allowing a student to gain a major with 90 points at 300-level would not be unusual. Professor Brock noted this issue had been discussed at Academic Committee and will be considered in the curriculum framework discussions. The developers were thanked for their inclusion of Health Marketing in the major.

7

Associate Professor Joost De Bruin introduced the second proposal noting that it was a tidy up of prior proposals approved at the last Academic Board. Also, the proposal includes some changes to clean up inconsistencies. Colleagues assisting with the development were thanked.

30.21 Faculty of Graduate Research Annual Report AB21/14 Professor Neil Dodgson introduced the Faculty of Graduate Research Annual Report highlighting three points. Firstly, there were 8 key interventions (p.53) that were implemented to assist students in response to COVID. The very hard work of the office and other staff at the University in these interventions was acknowledged. Secondly, Professor Dodgson wanted to inform Heads of School that there appears to be a discrepancy between the numbers of staff who are not supervising postgraduate students (1/3 of academic staff) and the 400 students that were declined due to “supervision not being available”. Thirdly WINZ and Studylink accommodation supplements are available for students. This has been advertised on the FGR and Finance webpages, but in some cases supervisors are not aware; therefore, please tell supervisors to advise students to contact student finance or WINZ if they require support and that the Doctoral Scholarship fund is available for support. In response a member mentioned that the mismatch in supervision may be due to a misalignment of research topics. Another member suggested that PVC’s could discuss this and other related issues, to raise expectations that senior academic staff are to support FGR. Professor Guilford confirmed this would be noted as a discussion point with SLT. 31.21 University Research Committee Annual Report AB21/15 Professor Margaret Hyland introduced the University Research Committee Annual Report stating that it follows the move to become more of an overview report on research activities within the University with particular focus on our strategic initiatives.

Professor Hyland highlighted the establishment of the Faculty Strategic Research Funds, the Returning Carers’ Research Fund and Writing Retreat, the introduction of the Elements Research Profiles and the Open Access Repository. The University’s excellent performance in External Research Income (ERI) was also noted, however the University is heavily reliant on a small number of Principal Investigators to earn ERI.

A member noted that in looking at the research income, supporting evidence on appendix C was incorrect. Other examples of incorrect data include the percentages of numbers of applications that resulted in awards of money. In response, Professor Hyland confirmed the reliability of the external research income data, as that goes to TEC; however, she would review the other data much of which unfortunately is manually gathered, challenges are further compounded by the times at which applications are applied for and when the funds are granted. New systems to be introduced this year will automate this information.

32.21 Part C of the agenda It was resolved that non-members be excluded from this meeting for consideration of agenda items 13, 14 and 15, in accordance with s9(2)(b)(ii) and s9(2)(i)) of the Official Information Act. G.Guilford

8

33.21 Part B of the agenda The following items not having been brought forward — 1. 5 non-CUAP proposals summarised in the Academic Committee report were approved; and AB21/16 2. Programme review updates for Biology, Biomedical Sciences, Cell & Molecular Bioscience, Ecology, Biodiversity, Marine and Conservation Biology, and Science and Society were received AB21/17a-c

At 2.49pm, non-members left the meeting to allow members to discuss confidential items.

Part C 34.21 MEMBERS ONLY

G. Guilford

Attendance 60 members attended; 12 non-members attended; 19 apologies were received (refer to Appendix 1 for detailed record).

Signed: Professor Grant Guilford, Vice-Chancellor

9

Appendix 1: Academic Board attendance 20 April 2021 Professor Grant Guilford, Convenor

60 Members present

Attending under s3.2 of the Standing Orders of the Academic Board: nil advised Professor Gordon Anderson Dr Linda Hogg Professor Meredith Marra Professor Richard Arnold Associate Professor Kathy Associate Professor Stephen Dr Clive Aspin Holloway Marshall Professor Brigitte Bönisch- Dr Michael Homer Dr Stuart Marshall Brednich Associate Professor Val Professor Ehsan Mesbahi Professor Stuart Brock Hooper Professor Nicola Nelson Professor Jane Bryson Dr Hannah Hopewell Professor James Noble Dr Diana Burton Professor Kate Hunter Professor Sally-Jane Norman Professor Petra Butler Professor Margaret Hyland Dr John Randal Professor Urs Daellenbach Laura Jackson Associate Professor Kabini Dr Joost de Bruin Associate Professor Carwyn Sanga Annemarie de- Castro Jones Professor Martha Savage Professor Stephen Dobson Professor Annemarie Jutel Professor Marc Aurel Professor Neil Dodgson Professor Simon Keller Schnabel Janet Fletcher Associate Professor Dean Dr Kirsten Smiler Associate Professor Peter Gu Knight Professor Karen Smith Professor Grant Guilford Ekaterina Kovtun Professor Jane Stafford Professor Dave Harper Professor Wendy Larner Geoff Stahl Dr John Haywood Professor Sarah Leggott Michael Turnbull Associate Professor Nikki Associate Professor Ivy (I- Dr Sue Walbran Hessell Ming) Liu Professor Marc Wilson Professor Mark Hickford Cherri-Lyn Lomax-Morris Professor Jennifer Windsor Professor Rawinia Higgins Professor Antonia Lyons Associate Professor Sally Hill Dr Xavier Marquez Non-members in attendance 12 Non-members Dr Jasonne Grabher Associate Professor Kathryn present Joy Gribben Sutherland Annemarie de Castro Lynn Grindell Associate Professor Paul Eden Ee Cathy Powley Teesdale-Spittle Angela Geerts Edward Schofield Claire Williams Derek White

Apologies 19 Apologies Professor Siah Hwee Ang Professor Nicholas Golledge Professor Elizabeth Stanley Dr Anita Brady Professor Sara Kindon Professor Paul Warren Professor David Capie Associate Professor Dame Hon. Professor Peter Whiteford Professor Dale Carnegie Winnie Laban Professor Colin Wilson Dr Victoria Chanse Professor Charlotte Macdonald Professor Michael Winikoff Professor Averil Coxhead Dr Ocean Mercier Associate Professor Peter Miniruwani Samarakoon Donelan Dr Mere Skerrett

10 AB21/25

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON ACADEMIC BOARD

AGENDA ITEM 9

Date 4 June 2021

Proposer Professor Stuart Brock, Vice-Provost (Academic)

DOCUMENT RECORD

Reference AB21/25

Title Report of the Academic Committee

Author (memorandum) Pam Green, Academic Programmes Coordinator

The Academic Board is asked to:

Endorse: for submission - the 2 CUAP proposals summarised in the report Approve: the 9 non-CUAP proposals Note: the other items discussed and/or approved by the Academic Committee at its 4 May 2021 and 1 June 2021 meetings. Note: Items that are included in this report are available from the Academic Office upon request.

1

AB21/25

Memorandum To Academic Board

From Pam Green, Academic Programmes Coordinator

Date 10 May 2021

Subject Report of the Academic Committee

This section of the report covers the 4 May 2021 meeting of the Academic Committee.

A. Academic proposals for Academic Board approval (non-CUAP) The proposals summarised below were endorsed by the Academic Committee for submission to the Academic Board. Academic Board approval is sought. 1. BC/1 - Amend the Literary and Creative Communication major in the BC This proposal amends the major subject requirements for the Literary and Creative Communication major in the Bachelor of Communication (BC) to include TXTT 201 Print, Communication and Culture and add it to the BC schedule.

2. MICAT/1 - Introduction of two new courses to the MICAT This proposal introduces two new courses to the Master of Intercultural Communication and Applied Translation schedule and consequential changes.

3. BA/7 – Introduction of a new 200-level CRIM course To introduce a new course to the BA schedule: CRIM 210 Beyond Crime: Understanding Social Harm

4. BC/2 – Introduction of a new course, ICOM 101 To introduce a new course to the Bachelor of Communication (BC) schedule: ICOM 101 Introduction to Intercultural Communication and related changes.

5. BCom/1, MCom/1 - Introduce substitutes for ECON and FINA research projects This proposal introduces four new 15-pt courses to the BCom(Hons) Schedule: ECON 490 and FINA 490 (Research Project A), and ECON 491 and FINA 491 (Research Project B) and amends the ECON and FINA subject requirements in the BCom(Hons) and MCom regulations to permit substitution of the combination 490/491 for the 30-pt Research Project (430).

2

AB21/25

6. PGDipBusAdmin/1, PGDipHRM/1, PGDipMKT/1, CertMS/1 - Amend the PGDipBusAdmin, and close CertMS, PGDipHRM and PGDipMKT to new students This proposal combines the PGCertBusAdmin and PGDipBusAdmin regulations, amends the content and entry requirements of the PGDipBusAdmin, closes the CertMS, PGDipHRM and PGDipMKT to new students and deletes 5 courses CMSP 801 - 805

B. Academic proposals approved by the Academic Committee (for noting) 1. BA/2 – To amend criminology prerequisites To amend the prerequisites for 200-level CRIM courses and related changes.

C. Other matters (for noting) There were no other papers on the agenda for approval.

3

AB21/25

Memorandum To Academic Board

From Pam Green, Academic Programmes Coordinator

Date 4 June 2021

Subject Report of the Academic Committee

This section of the report covers the 1 June 2021 meeting of the Academic Committee. This meeting was cancelled and proposals were approved/endorsed via online email consultation.

A. Academic proposals for endorsement (CUAP) The proposals below were endorsed by the Academic Committee for submission to the Academic Board. Refer to Part A agenda item AB21/23 for endorsement of these proposals. 1. BA/9 - Amending the Italian major in the BA

2. BSc/6, BSc(Hons)/3, BE(Hons)/3: Change the name of the Computer Graphics major and subsequent amendments.

B. Academic proposals for Academic Board approval (non-CUAP) The proposals summarised below were endorsed by the Academic Committee for submission to the Academic Board. Academic Board approval is sought. 1. MArch(Prof)/2, MLA/1, MIA/1, MArchSc(Res)/1: Amend MArch (Prof), MIA, MLA and MArchSc(Res) regulations. This proposal modifies the general requirements and schedules of the MArch (Prof), MIA, MLA and MArchSc(Res) to introduce new Master’s codes, from 2021. INTA 592 is removed from the regulations and schedule of the MIA.

2. PGDipDE/1, PGCertDE/1: Amend regulations This proposal amends the regulations of the Postgraduate Diploma and Certificate of Design Innovation

3. BSc(Hons)/4, MSc/1, MCompSc/1, PGDipSc/1, PGCertSc/1: Amend courses for postgraduate Science programmes. This proposal adds the 400-level Artificial Intelligence (AIML) courses to the list of optional courses in the Master of Computer Science (MCompSc) (from 2021), to the prerequisites of COMP 501 and 589 and adds 400-level Artificial Intelligence (AIML) courses to the list of optional courses in the BSc(Hons), PGCertSc, PGDipSc and MSc

4

AB21/25

in the subjects Computer Graphics (CGRA) and Electronic and Computer Systems (ELCO).

C. Academic proposals approved by the Academic Committee (for noting) 1. BAS/1, BBSc/1, MArch(prof)/1: Amend Prerequisites for Furniture Design electives, SARC 212, 312 and 412

D. Other matters (for noting) There were no other papers on the agenda for approval.

5

AB21/25

6

AB21/26

MEMORANDUM

TO Academic Board

FROM Janet Fletcher

DATE 4 June 2021

SUBJECT Library Developments Annual Report 2020

Please find attached the Library Developments Annual Report for 2020. It summarises activities and achievements of the University Library.

It is recommended that the Victoria University of Wellington Academic Board: a. receive: the Library’s 2020 annual report

1

2 AB21/26

LIBRARY DEVELOPMENTS ANNUAL REPORT 2020 The aim of this report is to outline key highlights and achievements for 2020. 1. GENERAL COVID-19 Response Over lockdown, it was a tribute to our staff’s customer focus and adaptability that we were able to keep delivering most of our services and resources. Electronic resources to support learning teaching and research were obviously crucial for university resilience. Academic staff were supported in finding alternative online teaching material where physical items, including course reading packs, were not available. Work was undertaken in Talis and Blackboard to ensure teaching material was available and content providers were generally lenient in allowing extra material to be copied which the Library facilitated and made available via Blackboard. The Library proactively contacted academic staff to assist in providing online course readings (eBooks in particular) and audio-visual content. Undergraduate and postgraduate students continued to engage with the library research skills and referencing workshops offered via Zoom during the lockdown period. Feedback indicated that students enjoying connecting with other students for these topics and participation was significantly higher than for our usual physical classroom workshops. These online workshops continued throughout the rest of the year.

COVID-19 also reinforced the value of the Library as a physical space and as the principal non- teaching campus space for many students. To help students who were Wellington-based but had inadequate study space at home, we reopened the Rankine Brown reading room for limited hours as soon as we were at Alert Level 3. We also provided a click and collect/click and deliver service from Kelburn, including resources from Pipitea (law). Over 1200 items were requested, primarily from the main library. We continued to post items to library users who were outside Wellington after lockdown. I would like to thank all library staff who were able to come on site and offer these services. It was strange and unsettling in those early days, with the campus almost deserted and public transport unpredictable. We are grateful for the support offered by Campus Care and other groups across the University.

Strategy The Library’s strategy was reviewed at the end of 2019 to align our goals more closely with the updated University strategy. 2. BUDGET AND COLLECTIONS

The Library spent a total of approximately $12.5m on resources to support the University’s learning, teaching and research. Library managers used discretionary spending in the collections to directly support resilience in teaching and learning by prioritising purchasing electronic resources to replace print-based course readings.

1 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

The National Library of New Zealand received $58.8 million for a 2-4 year New Zealand libraries’ partnership programme. The programme is supporting librarians and library services to be retained in NZ libraries to support community recovery. The programme includes funding nationwide consortia agreements, including those that NZ universities are part of, ie Te Puna and EPIC. This means that Te Herenga Waka will make savings of $435,744 over the two-year period 1 July 2020-30 June 2022. The Library purchases most of its resources via the CAUL/CONZUL (Australia/New Zealand universities) consortium. This consortium sought agreement with vendors for a zero increase in pricing for 2021 representing savings of AUD$8m across all consortium members. The consortium has also (temporarily) stopped negotiating multi-year contracts due to uncertainty with university libraries’ 2021+ budgets. Transformative agreements that move from paywall subscriptions to open access models remain a focus.

Examples of new resources purchased in 2020

• Clinicalkey Student Database as a comprehensive teaching resource for the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Practice. This resource offers access to the leading nursing and midwifery textbooks from Elsevier. • PKU Law Online, an online database of English language translations of laws, regulations, and cases from the People's Republic of China. • SAGE Business Cases 2020 collection. The 2020 collection included over 600 new business case studies with teaching notes. It is primarily for the Faculty of Commerce. It offers the most up-to-date teaching materials for Wellington School of Business & Government. . • Elsevier e-Textbook collection. Provides access to over 250 textbooks with unlimited access on the ScienceDirect platform. It's multidisciplinary and includes titles published from 1977 to present. It's an evidence-based purchase offer after evaluating the use of the free trial during the COVID-19 lockdown between March-June 2020.

Managing the Library’s physical collections

Work on this project continued throughout the year though was impacted by staff shortages and other factors. We started the evaluation project on Level 6 of the Kelburn Library which houses subjects such as science, medicine, agriculture and technology. As expected, we deselected a high percentage of titles in these subject areas, as these disciplines are less reliant on print than other disciplines. In most cases we retained access to deselected content via electronic sources.

3. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

An appraisal for insurance purposes of the JCBR special collections was undertaken in December 2020. The value of the collection was assessed at $5,122,397. The previous review was undertaken 20 years ago with a valuation of $1,858,473.

4. CAMPUS LIBRARIES

Seismic work in Rankine Brown on the base isolators and widening the earthquake channel between Rankine Brown and the Hub was finally completed. Seismic work was also undertaken at A&D causing minor disruption to the Library over summer, and minor repairs to the internal study room walls from earthquake damage was undertaken at Old Government buildings

2 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

The post-graduate space on Level 6 at Rankine Brown was refurbished with ergonomic study furniture, see-through lockers and soft furnishings. Post-graduate student use of the space has increased since these improvements were made. Improvements continued in our Maori student space, Te Taratara ā Kae, including a “muppet” to assist with teaching and a display screen added. In our Pasifika space, Wan Solwara, we improved our representation of all Pasifika nations by displaying the flags from Micronesia along the north end windows. One of two entry points lacked a Pasifika presence, so a series of Tapa cloths was professionally hung on one side of the hallway and a Pasifika frosted design placed on the glass panels on the other side. Large cushions were also purchased to go on the Wan Solwara mat. This has brightened up the area and made it a more inspiring space for students’ study and research.

Many library study spaces in the Old Government Buildings (Law) had very outdated furniture so we upgraded study rooms, computer rooms and group study rooms with lighter ergonomic furniture sourced from surplus university stock or purchased. At Law we also moved the Library’s service point from behind the counter to be more accessible to library users.

New shelf-end signage was installed at the Architecture and Design Library. Signs are now bilingual, subjects/themes added, and a refreshed design style applied. These changes will gradually be applied across all libraries.

The installation of the Level 0 Rankine Brown high density shelving took all year to complete. Print collections that were sent offsite and were made unavailable after the Kaikoura earthquake have been returned to Level 0. Re-housing has been a time-consuming process. After final assessments in terms of health, safety and security have been completed, this floor will be reopened (due June 2021).

In late 2020, we purchased a new microfilm reader/printer as even in the 21st century there is research material only available in microfilm/microfiche format. Our old machines had reached end of life.

In 2020 we undertook an upgrade of security technology in our library spaces. This included installing new panic buttons and security cameras at each library.

Door count statistics for all libraries

Our four libraries receive approximately 2 million visitors onsite per year. Alas COVID reduced numbers by half in 2020. 2018: 2,112,694 | 2019: 2,079,06 | 2020: 1,047,788. For obvious reasons, in 2020 our online interaction numbers soared.

3 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

5. INFORMATION AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT The University registered with MBIE as an authorised entity under s69A of the Copyright Act 1994, which implemented the Treaty of Marrakesh - copyright exemptions for students with print disabilities. This allows the University to help students with print disabilities by making accessible format copies of print works without seeking permission of the copyright owner. Disability Services advises the Library when a student needs an accessible format of a printed work. Accessible formats help a student with print disabilities in various ways such as allowing text-to-audio translation and print enlargement. We have had two requests since the Treaty was implemented in early January 2020. Use of the CLNZ license All NZ universities hold a license with CLNZ to allow us to copy from print and distribute readings to enrolled students (providing readings sourced from digital objects is covered by the licenses the University holds with publishers). In summary, the Copyright Act permits copying of 3% or 3 pages (whichever is greatest), whereas the CLNZ license allows 10% or one chapter (whichever is greatest). If we want to copy more than 10% of one chapter, we pay an additional transactional license fee. The current license fee is per EFTS. Our statistics on copying from print shows that the use of the CLNZ license is steadily declining though year-on-year comparisons are difficult. For example, in Trimester 1 2020 usage dropped but we taught less courses using print material than the previous year, whilst in Tri 2 2020 we taught more courses than in 2019 and usage still dropped.

The CLNZ license expired at the end of 2020 and we are currently copying under the terms of the previous license. Negotiations with CLNZ are conducted by the Copyright Expert Working Group, a sub-group of the Universities NZ.

4. LEARNING AND TEACHING SUPPORT

4 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

Online help videos were produced during the year to better assist students, particularly for referencing and searching. VStream (Panopto) was found to be very effective for quickly producing help content.

Zoom was used extensively to deliver support for postgraduate and international students. This included use for 1:1 consultations or group workshops that proved very popular during and post lockdown.

Subject Guides were enhanced with the new University branding and layout based on student feedback and user experience sessions. The guides are now structured to follow the undergraduate assignment and research process.

Closer ties were forged with Student Learning, Āwhina and Pasifika Student engagement, with joint workshops and activities arranged.

The course readings in Talis were analysed and new online content purchased where possible. Open Education Resources (OERs) were investigated as a possible option for readings and course packs in the future with a guide produced to help academics.

Librarians liaised with course coordinators to embed key library resources in Blackboard to support students in their Library research skills development. Since 2018, the number of courses with library content has increased every trimester.

A new single search option that enables students to search across Library resources and support by course code was developed and made available from the Library’s homepage. The option can also be easily embedded in Blackboard courses and is included in the new Blackboard template and Toiere guidance. This allows students to undertake one search to find relevant subject guides, their subject librarian, past exam papers and course readings.

Support for referencing and citing help moved fully online with enhanced support resources and vendor help. Library staff trained Digital Solutions support staff on how to answer and triage technical enquiries.

6. RESEARCH SUPPORT

The Library collaborated with the Research Office in implementing a new institutional Open Access Repository. Figshare was selected as the platform because it integrates with Elements making deposit straightforward. The goal is to automate processes as much as possible. Subject Librarians were trained on the process and helped researchers with the first tranche of publications to be deposited. The Open Access Policy and associated Guidelines were finalised in late 2020.

The process for submitting online-only thesis deposit for ‘standard’ theses was completed, ie theses that would normally be presented as a bound volume and a single PDF file. The main question from faculties was about digital preservation; DSpace is our digital preservation ‘vault’, as well as a platform to hold material that does not belong in the open access repository. It continues to be important for supervisors and students to be aware of their copyright obligations well before thesis deposit.

5 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

Librarians assisted in the ‘Discovery’ researcher profiles project led by the Research Office. Discovery is an Elements module which streams Elements data (publications, teaching, grants, research interests) to web profiles, automating updates and providing another way of exposing the University’s research. Librarians also continued to assist with ORCID checking, including encouraging PhD students and academic staff to register for ORCID and link publications in Elements to ORCID. We continued to provide tailored bibliometric reports as requested, for example, Associate Deans Research, Heads of Schools, chairs of School Research Committees.

The Library offered journal editors associated with the University the opportunity to make their journal open access without cost via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) which is a free open source academic journal management platform. The Library also created Crossref DOIs (digital object identifer) for articles on this platform without cost. In 2020, CounterFutures migrated to OJS. The number of the University’s journals live on the website is 14 though some journal titles are no longer active, see https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/. Of the OJS hosted journals in 2020, the total number of articles published was 172 with 334 citations. The Journal of New Zealand Studies is indexed by Scopus.

7. STAFFING As with many other areas of the University, Library staffing levels were depleted during the year due to long-term secondments, accepting positions at other libraries and organisations, changed personal circumstances, and staff accepting University VELP/VR offers. This impacted on our priorities with some projects delayed. It was challenging providing enough staffing to run and maintain our libraries, particularly evenings and weekends.

8. OTHER ACTIVITIES

• Janet Fletcher continued to act as Secretary of the International Federation of Libraries (IFLA), Library Buildings and Equipment Standing Committee (LBES) 2019-2023. • In February, Janet attended the mid-year meeting of LBES in Montreal, Canada. Hosted by McGill University, the group held a one-day seminar for over 150 delegates, including architects, administrators and librarians from across Canada and USA. They also visited several academic and public libraries around the city as well as holding their formal standing committee meeting. • Janet completed her final term as CONZUL representative on the CAUL Content Procurement Committee. She was on this committee 2016-2020. • Trish Wilson continued as Chair of the International Association of University Libraries (IATUL) Metrics and Research Impact Special Interest Group. • Janet remained a member of the Institute of Physics APAC Library Advisory Board. • Margaret Ferguson remained a member of the International and ANZ Cambridge Advisory Boards • Aisha LeFrantz remained a member of the selection committee for Knowledge UnLatched • Marisa King, Natalie Smith, and Ivy Guo were national committee convenors for the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) Tertiary Education Libraries Special Interest Group (TelSIG) • Janet continued to be university lead for the Student Success Programme, as well as continuing her role as university librarian

6 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

9. PUBLICATIONS

• Missingham, R & Fletcher, J (2020) Dark Clouds and Silver Linings: An Epistemological Lens on Disaster Recovery, Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 69:2, 246-261, DOI: 10.1080/24750158.2020.1730067

Janet Fletcher University Librarian

7 Library developments annual report - 2020 AB21/26

8 Library developments annual report - 2020