<div dir="ltr"><div>Just completed the survey.</div><div>If it is at all helpful for anyone, here were some of my thoughts/responses...</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">Qu) The lifecycle assessment (LCA) is now included in Unit 1 to increase students' capacities to make meaningful improvements to all areas of sustainability.</span></p><p class="gmail-p1">Response) LCA as a scientific approach to assessing a product's impacts and cannot be done accurately and with the appropriate detail - too much work. I agree that a study of LCA is appropriate here and an analysis based on LCA principles should be done.</p>
<p class="gmail-p3">Qu) To what extent do you agree with the proposal to reduce the content in Unit 3 to make for a more realistic workload?<br><span class="gmail-s1"></span></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1">Response) Currently workload too big and highly repetitive. So hard to achieve the strength of descriptors used to assess SAT work and in a study which is notoriously scaled down.</span></p><p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1"><br></span></p><p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1">UNIT 1</span></p><p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1">
</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">LCA in key knowledge but a detailed analysis of impacts based on LCA on skills. Unit 1 is already a heavy load within one semester.</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">UNIT 3</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">
</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">Increase allocation of marks for outcome 2 to 40. </span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">Concerned about use of "end-user" only. There has been a worthwhile distinction for students who source a client and an end-user. Students need to be encouraged to have an opportunity to be truly creative and innovative with their final year's work to gain entry into courses and the restriction implied by "end-users" only, if groups of end-users are what is meant it is too restrictive. No advantage in adding 2 more "P's" to the 5P's other than adding to complexity and irrelevance. Cannot see ANY real reduction in workload.</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">UNIT 4</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">
</span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">Reduce outcome 1 allocation of marks to 35. </span></p><p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">Students have no prerequisites to attempting Units 3&4 and yet the content builds on Units 1&2 and calls for a high level of experience to achieve success.</span></p></div><div><br></div><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff6600"><b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></b></font></i></div><div><i><b><font size="2" face="garamond, serif">Lisa Walsh</font></b></i></div><div><font face="garamond, serif">Design & Technology</font></div><div><font face="garamond, serif">Avila College</font></div><div><font face="garamond, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="garamond, serif"><img src="http://teresa.avila.vic.edu.au/signature/Avila_signature.jpg"><br></font></div><div><br></div><div><i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff6600"><b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></b></font></i></div></div></div></div>
</div>