We request a thorough and prompt investigation into the Monash Online GDP.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!


For the attention of the Association Dean of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University:

 
We request a thorough and prompt investigation into the Graduate Diploma of Psychology (online).


The following includes some issues raised by students regarding the course:


Teaching/Instructors:

  • There are insufficient video lectures.
  • Tutorials focus on unclear assessments, not teaching.
  • Instructors often miss ideal opportunities for teachable moments.
  • Some instructors are of much lower quality than others and are unable to answer specific questions or discuss concepts using logical reasoning, but can only recite what is in the textbook.
  • Students are not taught how to properly conduct journal article searches and analysis.
  • Instructors can take over a week to reply to emails and Ask Your Instructor questions, sometimes requiring multiple prompts to do so. Some questions are left unanswered at the end of the teaching period, despite being sent or posted a week prior.

Marking:

  • Quality work does not necessarily receive quality marks.
  • Marking is inconsistent across markers, students and assignments.
  • Markers are often subjectively specific about what they give and deduct marks for. Students are marked down on points which were neither taught, detailed in the assignment question or criteria, nor would be considered best practice. Students are therefore encouraged not to answer the assignment questions as best as possible, displaying knowledge and critical thinking, but to guess the subjective way it may be marked.
  • Markers ask to “expand” or “provide examples” up to 10 times in assignments with tight word limits, despite no parts of the assignment being noted as unnecessary or long-winded.
  • Markers refuse to provide examples of how to write to meet the triad of the assignment’s criteria, the marker’s criteria and the word limit, leaving students with little idea of how to improve.
  • Feedback is often vague, subjective and non-constructive.
  • Some markers do not understand what is being communicated unless it is written in the most basic English.
  • A remark can result in a student’s mark in one section of an assignment changing by more than 100%, with no feedback or justification given, even on request.

Multiple choice quizzes:

  • Many questions focus on ROTE learned peripheral details, rather than our understanding of core concepts.
  • The quizzes were changed from open book to closed book, without an appropriate change in questions.
  • Quizzes are sometimes worth very little, given they are the area of the course where knowledge is most reliably rewarded and not subject to the marking issues detailed above.
  • For some questions, the “correct” answer as per the quiz is not the most correct answer of the options available. Previously, a review period existed where students challenged these poorly designed questions and were awarded marks accordingly. This review period has been removed. 

Co-ordinators:

  • Replies from the course coordinators in response to concerns and complaints often do not directly address the issue raised, and instead include empty rhetoric defending the course, leaving students unsupported.
  • Feedback is now only to be given through anonymous forms, meaning no responses are received and accountability cannot be enforced.

 

Yours sincerely,

 
Concerned students.

 



Today: Stuart is counting on you

Stuart Tyson needs your help with “Associate Dean of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University: We request a thorough and prompt investigation into the Monash Online GDP.”. Join Stuart and 34 supporters today.