final project report submission date: 17 august 2012mams.rmit.edu.au/f8ftfwod88dvz.pdf · final...

Learning and Teaching Investment Fund 2011

Final Project Report Submission date: 17 August 2012 Title of project: Learning Segments: a blue print for re-imagining postgraduate coursework masters programs @ RMIT Strategic objective(s) addressed: The LTIF Learning Segments Project proposal was submitted under the ‘work-relevant and industry partnered’ Category. The project was based on the innovative UK Higher Education ‘bite-sized’ learning approach. The major outcome of the project is a Blueprint for re-imagining postgraduate coursework masters programs at RMIT. The Blueprint outlines two models for masters coursework program designs that will widen access and participation for learners who are currently in the workforce. The models developed are underpinned by current literature and focus on curriculum designs that are learner-centred and demand-led. Such designs have been shown to lead to greater learner engagement and satisfaction, as well as enhanced academic and social outcomes. The strategic objective/s the project addressed was: __ to be global in reach and impact X to be work-relevant and industry-partnered __ to be urban in innovation and impact __ to support the participation, retention and/or success of low Socio Economic Status (SES)

higher education students in undergraduate studies Project leaders: Professor Barbara de la Harpe, Acting Pro Vice Chancellor, DSC A/Professor Kym Fraser, Learning Segments Project Director, DSC College Office Professor Colin Fudge, Pro Vice Chancellor & Vice President, DSC Professor Ian Palmer, Pro Vice Chancellor & Vice President, BUS Professor Peter Coloe, Pro Vice Chancellor & Vice President, SEH Professor Julianne Reid, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor (L&T), SEH Professor Val Clulow replaced Professor Kevin Adams, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor (L&T), BUS Contact details: Professor Barbara de la Harpe, Acting Pro Vice Chancellor Design & Social Context 99251924 [email protected] Project team members: Mr Edmund Horan, Program Director Masters of Sustainable Practice, SEH Dr Ruwini Edirisinghe, Research Assistant for the Masters of Sustainable Practice, SEH

August 2012

Mr Vass Karpathiou, Program Director Masters of Business (IT), BUS Associate Professor Joan Richardson, Deputy Head (L&T), BUS Ms Marilyn Chee, Research Assistant for the Masters of Business (IT) Mr Vince Raso, Program Director Masters of Property, DSC Mr Wejenra Reddy, Research Assistant for the Masters of Property, DSC Ms Dallas Wingrove, Senior Advisor L&T, DSC Dr Pat. Kelly, Educational Designer Dr Alex Radloff, Higher Education External Advisor and Evaluator Dr Regine Wagner, Work Based Learning External Expert Dr Merilyn Childs, Work Based Learning External Expert Table of Contents

1 Executive summary and recommendations (up to half a page).................................................... 3 2 A list of outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Project outcomes and impacts................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Summary of project outcomes and impacts ...............................................................5 3.2 Issues that prevented the project from achieving all of the original outcomes stated in the

application ...................................................................................................................................9 4 Dissemination strategies and outputs...............................................................................................10

4.1 Project Progress Dissemination activities .................................................................. 10 4.2 Model Consultation Dissemination activities ............................................................ 11 4.3 In progress:......................................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Audit against proposed dissemination activities outlined in the application .. 12

5 Evaluation of project outcomes...........................................................................................................14 5.1 Key Evaluation questions.............................................................................................. 14 5.2 External consultant evaluation ................................................................................... 16

6 Budget report ...........................................................................................................................................16 Appendix A1. Implementing Model 1 the Masters of Urban Design ...................... 17 Appendix A2. Implementing Model 1 in the Masters of Sustainable Practice..... 22 Appendix B1. Model 2 implementation in the Masters of Sustainable Practice. 27 Appendix B2. Model 2 implementation by the Masters of Property...................... 28 Appendix B3. Model 2 implementation by the Masters of Business (IT). ............ 29 Appendix C. Themes from student interviews............................................................... 30 Appendix D. Principles for the design of coursework Masters Programs............ 31 Appendix E. Characteristics of effective learners and strategies to support their learning 32 Appendix F. Implementing university wide change.................................................... 35 Appendix G. External consultant evaluation ................................................................. 38 Appendix H. Blueprint.......................................................................................................... 41

August 2012

1 Executive summary and recommendations (up to half a page) The LTIF “Learning Segments Project” facilitated a review of the structure and curriculum design of selected masters coursework programs. The project was tasked with developing an innovative structure for RMIT masters coursework programs in order to widen access and participation for learners who are also working professionals. The project used a participatory action learning methodology combining the strengths of collaborative learning in local contexts with strategic leadership. The project worked with three masters coursework programs, one from each College; M. of Business (IT) (Business), M. of Property (DSC), and M. of Sustainable Practice (SEH). The project team reviewed relevant literature including the AQF, interviewed students and employers of our graduates, reviewed innovations in Australian and overseas masters coursework programs, and reviewed Australian and overseas programs in discipline areas that were the same as or similar to the three programs in the project. From this work, two models were developed and further refined through an extensive consultation process with senior managers, central groups, program directors, and deputy heads (T&L). Model 1 can be implemented under current RMIT policies, processes and systems and Model 2 requires policy, process and system change. The two models are designed to:

� improve student engagement with their discipline;

� connect programs to their industry and professional organisations;

� develop global perspectives and experiences ;

� enhance program use of the urban environment; and

� comply with AQF, TEQSA and RMIT requirements.

Each of the models has been mapped against RMIT masters coursework programs as proof of concept of the models. A discussion paper has been developed for Policy and Programs Committee recommending adoption of the Blueprint in the RMIT Program Development and Approvals Process. Outcomes of the project include: a Blueprint, designed to be used by program teams to develop contemporary masters coursework programs that are distinctive and more attractive to working professionals; proof of concept examples for each of the two models; engagement with industry partners; enhanced staff knowledge of and experience in responding to and adapting curriculum for masters by coursework programs; improved knowledge of the learning and financial requirements of different learning and teaching models for masters by coursework programs; deeper knowledge of local and disciplinary specific enablers and barriers to the two models; and an online site that showcases the resources produced throughout the project. Four papers are under development and will be submitted to peer review journals for publication. As a result of the project, a partnership of RMIT University, the Australian Catholic University and Open Universities Australia has been forged, culminating in the submission of an Office of Learning and Teaching grant application in August 2012.

August 2012

2 A list of outcomes

In line with the outcomes originally proposed, the project successfully delivered the following outcomes: 1. A Blueprint for the adaptation of RMIT coursework masters programs for working

professionals. The Blueprint details two model options aimed at widening access and participation for learners who wish to undertake a masters program and are currently in the workforce (see Appendix H). A discussion paper has been developed for Policy and Programs Committee recommending adoption of the Blueprint in the RMIT Program Development and Approvals Process. The paper was informed by feedback from over 20 consultation meetings across the University about the proposed Blueprint and its adoption across Schools (see section 4).

2. Proof of concepts for the adaptation of three masters coursework programs (one from each College) in line with the model(s) detailed in the Blueprint were developed. Proof of concept for Model 1 SEH Masters of Sustainable Practice is included in Appendix A2. Proof of concept for Model 2 SEH Masters of Sustainable Practice, DSC Masters of Property and Business Masters of Business (IT) are included in Appendices B1, B2 and B3. In addition to this outcome, a fourth program, the new DSC Masters of Urban Design, has been developed and mapped against Model 1, see Appendix A1. This program will be approved though Policy and Programs Committee for implementation in 2013.

3. Deeper engagement and collaboration with, as well as feedback from, industry partners through interviews with 8 employers and 2 professional/industry bodies as follows: six employers and one professional body from the Masters of Business (IT) program, one employer and one professional body from the Masters of Property program, and one employer from the Masters of Sustainable Practice program. In addition to this outcome, the project also interviewed 34 enrolled students and graduates about their experiences, expectations and ideas for future looking curriculum designs (see Appendix C for themes arising from the interviews).

4. Enhanced staff knowledge of and experience in responding to and adapting curriculum for masters by coursework programs aimed at working professionals through the ongoing involvement over the year-long project of 3 programs (one from each College). In addition, significant cross institutional and cross disciplinary learning regarding the design and development of contemporary curricula was facilitated through conversations at the more than 35 project dissemination and model consultation meetings conducted throughout the project. In addition to this outcome, the project also developed:

• Principles for the design of contemporary RMIT coursework masters programs (see Appendix D);

• Principles for student learning (see Appendix E); • Guidelines for staff and students for the development of learning contracts; • Descriptors of integrative assessments for staff to use to assist students to

integrate and apply knowledge and skills learned across the program. • Summaries from the literature on Australian coursework masters programs,

work based learning, bite sized learning, graduate capabilities development in Australian university programs, and employer perspectives on graduate capabilities;

August 2012

• Summaries from Business (IT), Property, and Sustainable Practice about masters coursework research;

• Summary of themes derived from interviews with RMIT students and employers; • Summary of ‘innovative’ practices in Business (IT), Property, Sustainable

Practice coursework programs in Australia and overseas programs; and • Summary of innovative practices in Australian and Overseas coursework

Masters Programs.

5. Improved knowledge of the learning and financial requirements of a different learning and teaching models for masters by course work programs, including pedagogy and space considerations. The project distilled program design and student learning principles that underpinned the design of the Models detailed in the Blueprint (see Appendix A). The financial implications for developing masters coursework programs based on the models include providing expert support for program teams and costs associated with enrolling students into more and short credit bearing courses. Potential savings of the models included the use of online delivery of courses and the use of online AQF skill courses across all coursework masters programs.

6. Deeper knowledge of local and disciplinary specific enablers and barriers was gained

and implications for the implementation of future learning and teaching models at RMIT were identified. The most significant enablers and barriers to curriculum change are detailed in section 3.1 and a guide to implementing organisational change is detailed in Appendix F.

7. An online site that showcases the project and documents the resources developed is

available at http://www.rmit.edu.au/dsc/programdevelopment 8. Four scholarship of learning and teaching (SOTL) papers are underway for submission

to peer reviewed journals. In addition to this outcome, an Office of Learning and Teaching grant application was submitted to the 2012 August round. The application proposes to develop 10 online student modules that address the AQF level 9 skill requirements for masters coursework programs. Organisations included as collaborators in the application are the Australian Qualifications Framework Council, the Business Higher Education Round Table, the Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development, the Victorian Employment Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Universities of: Adelaide, Curtin; Flinders; Griffith; Southern Cross; South Australia and Tasmania.

3 Project outcomes and impacts

3.1 Summary of project outcomes and impacts

Project outcome Project impact

Outcome 1. A Blueprint for the adaptation of coursework masters programs for inclusion in the RMIT Program Development and Approvals Process. Refer to Appendix H.

If adopted for implementation the project Blueprint will impact positively all working professional students studying masters by coursework programs at RMIT. The Blueprint details two models for the development of contemporary RMIT coursework Masters programs for working professionals. The first model can be implemented within existing RMIT policies, procedures and systems. The second model requires some policy, procedures and systems changes. The Blueprint can be used by academics to develop new programs or revise existing programs. The Blueprint reflects contemporary pedagogical thinking and provides an opportunity for further discussion of the advantages and challenges for coursework masters program designs that meet the needs of

August 2012

working professionals. The Blueprint will underpin the coursework Masters programs developed for the RMIT Barcelona campus.

Outcome 2. Examples of at least one1 national and international best practice postgraduate curriculum design models/programs in each College. From the three Colleges, three plus one additional (4) masters coursework program designs adapted using the Learning Segments Models. See Appendix A1, A2 and B1, B2 and B3.

The project engaged three Program Directors and their colleagues in rethinking the status quo and also challenged them to re-design their programs in line with more contemporary models for curriculum design. These re-designed programs are stage one proof of concept for the models. As model 2 cannot be implemented unless current RMIT University policy, processes and systems are changed, the mapping captured in Appendix B is at this stage, hypothetical.

Outcome 3. Deeper engagement and collaboration with industry partners through PAC members, industry partners and associated professional organisations and peak bodies (where available).

The project has facilitated deeper engagement and conversations with employers of RMIT graduates and updated Program Director knowledge about current industry views and trends. It has also strengthened relationships and facilitated the reciprocal use of industry and RMIT professional development programs. Through the project, employers of students from the three masters programs were interviewed. The project interviews allowed program directors to discuss higher degree education. The discussions allowed the further exploration of employer training and development needs and plans, and their willingness to join the program’s advisory committee. Two of the three programs were able to discuss with their professional bodies possibilities for linking their professional development programs with the RMIT masters courses and for advertising RMIT courses.

Outcome 4. Enhanced staff knowledge of and experience in responding to and adapting curriculum for masters by coursework programs. In addition, significant staff and student resources were developed through the project.

The project has impacted staff knowledge of and experience in adapting curricula to meet changing student cohort needs and expectations. The three Program Directors and their colleagues engaged with new ideas that can be shared more broadly with their program teams and with other School colleagues. In continuing to redevelop their programs they have focussed on developing and redeveloping courses and strengthened their ability to write learning outcomes, assessment tasks and assessment rubrics. The resources developed have been shared and discussed with Program Directors.

Outcome 5. Improved knowledge of the learning and financial requirements of a different learning and teaching models for postgraduate masters by course work

The project has deepened understanding of both pedagogy and financial implications of contemporary curriculum (re)design and the issues to be addressed in order to bring about change in the RMIT context, as detailed below. Pedagogy The project distilled program design principles, student learning

1 The original proposal applied for twice the funding over a two-year time frame. Half the funding originally applied for was granted, over a one-year time frame. As such, the outcomes have been adjusted including reducing outcome 2 from two programs/College to one program/College as well as the deletion of outcomes 3 and 4 from the original application, both relating to student experience outcomes. i.e. the project developed within the year didn’t include the trialling of the models on programs.

August 2012

programs, including pedagogy and space considerations.

principles and other good practice requirements for the development of contemporary coursework masters programs for the working professional. The work of the project has reinforced the importance of providing appropriate professional development and support for designing and redesigning coursework Masters programs, for example for outcomes such as: embedding adult learning and program design principles through programs; embedding and complying with AQF requirements throughout the program; development of integrative assessment tasks and marking rubrics; and the assessment of generic skills throughout the program. The support of Program Directors in this work has a financial implication for the University. Finances The work of the project has reinforced the importance of providing: • expert support for program teams developing masters

coursework programs based on the Blueprint Models. This support could be achieved through, for example a dedicated team with both pedagogy, technology and marketing expertise that would work with program teams to design new or revise existing programs. The experience of the project team is that Program Directors and teaching teams require support to re-design their programs in line with the Blueprint Models.

• the resource development of online, self-directed study modules that specifically develop AQF generic skills. Such a resource could be used across different masters programs. Such modules would be developed so that they can be customised and embedded into any RMIT masters course work program. The development of generic skills modules that can be used across all RMIT coursework masters programs would be a proactive investment that reduces duplication and provides potential resource development savings for each individual program.

• administration costs associated with the implementation of Model 2, for example: the revision of Business Rules such as Course Credit Point rules, and policies such as Workload Policy and RPL Policy; enrolling students in more courses than the traditional 12 courses; technical support for out of hours teaching; the manual enrolment of any students into the blackboard site of a course that they have already passed and wish to audit later in the program; and potentially scheduling/timetabling.

• The models detailed in the Blueprint (Appendix H) suggest potential savings in face-to-face teaching time and student travel (through the provision of online teaching).

Outcome 6. Deeper knowledge of local and disciplinary specific enablers and barriers and implications for future L&T learning and teaching projects in each College.

The project has identified significant key enablers and barriers that can inform others and, thus, have significant benefits for future and similar projects. Enablers identified included: • providing a clear rationale for the need for program change (for

example program viability) • taking a strengths/weakness/opportunities approach to each

program so focussing on what is working well in the program as well and what could be improved

• adopting a focus on programs that the program directors

August 2012

genuinely wanted to change • providing resources that allowed employment of staff to assist

with the collection of data for each program area. This data would not have been collected if already stretched program directors had been expected to do the relevant searches and interviews.

Implications for future L&T learning and teaching projects are: 1) funding for research assistance and professional development are an essential requirement for program development projects such as these; 2) clear benefits to all involved in the project need to be explicated; 3) stakeholder engagement is most likely to be achieved when based on voluntary participation. Barriers identified included: • academic staff resistance to curriculum innovation and change.

Concerns that militated against curriculum innovation and change were identified in three key areas: lack of time and resourcing; lack of pedagogic expertise and /or experience; and having to meet the requirements of external accrediting/registering bodies.

• varying degrees of willingness for programs to be involved across the Colleges and a general lack of interest in programs being part of the project.

• inability to use the project resources to buy out program directors’ time due to, for example, lack of staff with relevant expertise.

• competition from other College/School and program activities and priorities.

• limited engagement by the three PVCs (designated as leaders of this project) due to the difficulty in setting up joint meetings given diary availability.

• shortened project timeline from 2 years to one year which required the telescoping of time for activities such as consulting with industry and consulting about the draft model.

Implications for future L&T learning and teaching projects are that it is important to recognise these change management barriers to inform the design of projects, their length and models of leadership. The project found that the discipline did not appear to make a difference to either enablers or barriers.

Outcome 7. An online site that documents and showcases the life of the project

Resources developed from the project are available for access widely by both RMIT staff and those beyond RMIT. The resources can be found at http://www.rmit.edu.au/dsc/programdevelopment

Outcome 8. Presentations to University of proposed Blueprint for adoption across other schools.

Significant buy-in and discussion was generated across the RMIT community as a result of the project presentations and consultations. Over 35 dissemination presentations and consultation sessions were made to various groups in each of the Colleges, across the Colleges and to central University groups. The responses in the consultation sessions informed the further development and refinement of the models, which was invaluable. A full list of consultations and presentations made through the

August 2012

project can be found in section 4 of this report.

Outcome 9. A number of scholarship of learning and teaching (SoLT) papers for publication that document practice from student, staff and industry learning and teaching perspectives. Additionally an Office of Learning and Teaching grant application was made in August 2012 based on the work of the Learning Segments Project.

The project and its outcomes are being widely disseminated across the sector. Four papers are in progress and will be submitted to refereed journals in 2012. See Dissemination section for the working titles of the papers. These outputs will contribute to future RMIT DEST and ERA outcomes. Additionally, a partnership of RMIT University, the Australian Catholic University and Open Universities Australia has been forged, culminating in the submission of an Office of Learning and Teaching grant application in August 2012. Organisations included as collaborators in the application are the Australian Qualifications Framework Council, the Business Higher Education Round Table, the Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development, the Victorian Employment Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Universities of: Adelaide, Curtin; Flinders; Griffith; Southern Cross; South Australia and Tasmania. The application proposes to develop a suite of 10 innovative online modules for use by all Australian coursework masters students. The project team will collaborate with academic, industry and education experts to develop these modules which will be designed to be customised and/or embedded in any discipline. Each skill module will include the development of assessment tasks and rubrics and will allow students to develop and demonstrate achievement of the AQF coursework level 9 skills. The assessment tasks can be used by institutions to provide evidence for the reporting of AQF compliance standards to TEQSA through detailed mapping of attainment. Finally the modules will include guidelines for program/course directors to assist them to embed skills into their programs. The project proposed is unique in collaborating with the major Australian provider of online and open learning, the OUA, and is timely in assisting institutions to respond to the 2015 AQF requirements.

3.2 Issues that prevented the project from achieving all of the original outcomes stated in the application

While, as outlined above, all project outcomes were ultimately achieved a number of difficulties were experienced over the life of the project, as follows:

• It was exceedingly difficult to find a masters program director in each College who was willing to take part in the project. Reasons given for declining to take part in the project included: a lack of time; the perceived impossibility of finding staff to back fill for the program director even though time release funding was available; and a sense that the program was working well and did not need to be changed. It took over three months for the three program directors who did take part in the project to commence work with the project. Two of the three program directors took part at the behest of their Head of School/Deputy Head of School (L&T) and would not have taken part if that expectation had not existed.

• Many existing courses/course guides were extremely poorly designed and written which required significant investment in re-working at the learning outcome level, which was not expected or factored into the project time-line. The educational designer reviewed each of the core courses in each of the three programs that were part of the project. Each program director was given a summary of the ways in which the core course guides could be

August 2012

improved, from simply correcting grammatical and spelling errors to suggestions for re-writing and better aligning the learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment tasks. The program directors were contacted on several occasions and invited to work with either the educational designer or the project director to address the issues raised.

• While it was anticipated that the project would include interviews with employers from each

of the three programs, significantly fewer employers than were anticipated were interviewed.

• The decision in early January 2012 by the PVC College of Business to pursue a Business

College structure for postgraduate programs and consequent request for us not to consult with Business College staff restricted feedback on the models.

• It proved impossible for the project team to meet with the three PVCs who were the

champions of the project, despite numerous attempts to schedule meetings. This resulted in communication being via email or face-to-face meetings with individuals.

4 Dissemination strategies and outputs

The progress of the project was widely disseminated during the project and university wide consultation was included for the proposed models. Below is a list of dissemination and consultation activities undertaken during the project. In summary, 15 face-to-face project dissemination activities and 20 face-to-face consultation activities were held. Document drafts were also emailed to colleagues across the University for their Feedback.

4.1 Project Progress Dissemination activities

University wide

− July 2011 RMIT Learning and Teaching Expo ‘New Modes of Program Delivery’. Professor Colin Fudge, as one of the 3 PVC panel members, spoke to the premise of the Learning Segments project.

Business College

− May – July 2011, meetings with Deputy Heads (L&T) and some discipline and program directors to locate a program to take part in the project. (The Deputy Head (L&T) of the School of Program Director for the Masters of Business (IT) agreed and the College confirmed that program’s participation in the Learning Segments Project).

− September, Business College Executive meeting, progress report and request for thoughts on future steps

− April, August and November 2011, meetings convened with the Deputy PVC (L&T) to discuss the progress of the project and to determine future steps.

Design and Social Context College

− March 2012, consultation at Learning and Teaching Group meetings. − April – June 2011, meetings with Senior Liaison Advisors, Deputy Heads (L&T), some

Heads of School and some discipline and program directors to locate a program to take part in the project. (Program Director for the Masters of Business (Property) agreed and the College confirmed that program’s participation in the Learning Segments Project).

− June and October, Learning and Teaching Group updates. − April, July and October meetings were held with the PVC Professor Colin Fudge. − October and December, updates with Head of School of Property Construction and Project

Management in which Masters of Business (Property) is located. Science, Engineering and Health College

August 2012

− April, August and November 2011, meetings convened with the Deputy PVC (T&L) to discuss the progress of the project and to determine future steps.

− April – May 2011, meetings with Academic Development Group representative, Deputy Heads (L&T), and some discipline and program directors to locate a program to take part in the project (Program Director for the Masters of Sustainable Practice agreed and the College confirmed that program’s participation in the Learning Segments Project).

− September, written report to the Academic Development Group about the project. − September, update meeting with Academic Development Group representative and Deputy

Head (L&T) for Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering School (the school in which the Masters of Sustainable Practice is based).

− December, SEH College Executive meeting progress report.

4.2 Model Consultation Dissemination activities

Model 1 and 2 consultation activities The following groups were invited to consultation meetings, where the models were discussed, concerns noted and feedback sought. The feedback was then used to inform each iteration of the models. Model 2 was developed in January/February 2012 and consultations were carried out in February, March and April. Model 1 was developed in April 2012 and consultations were carried out from May to August 2012. DSC

− PVC consulted on Model 2 in February 2012 and on Model 1 in July of 2012. − Manager, DSC Academic Services In a January meeting Model 2 was discussed with the

Manager, DSC Academic Services specifically to determine the implications of the model for current RMIT policies and procedures.

− Program Directors and Deputy Heads (L&T) were invited to a 2-hour March consultation to discuss the draft of Model 2.

− Deputy Heads (L&T) March 2012 meeting, update and consultation on Model 2. − DSC L&T Group March 2012 consultation meeting on Model 2. − Deputy Heads (L&T) June 2012 meeting, update and consultation on Model 1. − DSC L&T Group August 2012 consultation meeting on Model 1. − Small group of selected Program Directors of coursework masters program invited to

working party for Model 1 in May. − Program Directors invited to two Model 1 consultation meetings in June. − DSC Executive three hour July workshop consultation on Models 1 and 2.

SEH

− The Associate PVC (L&T) was consulted on the draft of model 2 in a face to face meeting in January, teleconference meeting in February and by email. She was consulted on Model 1 via email in May.

− Program Directors and Deputy Heads (L&T) were invited to a 2-hour March consultation to discuss the draft of Model 2.

− Program Directors and Deputy Heads (L&T) invited to two Model 1 consultation meetings in June.

Business

− The PVC was consulted on Model 2 in an April face to face meeting. − The Associate PVC (L&T) was consulted on the draft of model 2 in a face to face meeting

in January, teleconference meeting in February and by email. − In February the Associate PVC (L&T) informed the project team that the Business College

was developing its own model for postgraduate programs and did not want the College’s Program Directors consulted on the Learning Segment Project Model as the College would not be using that model.

August 2012

− In June the Associate PVC (L&T) informed the project team that the position of the Business College re coursework masters programs had not changed.

Central groups

− Academic Registrar March meeting with the Academic Registrar and subsequently several members of her team. The specific focus of these meetings was the implications of Model 2 for current RMIT policies and procedures.

− Dean (L&T) March consultation meeting for discussion of Model 2. An electronic copy of Model 1 was sent to the Dean (L&T) and his team for feedback in June 2012.

− EduTag, Learning and Teaching Unit, Office of the DVC Academic (including Professors Palmer and Fallshaw), March 2012. Model 2 was discussed with members of these teams and their feedback sought. An electronic copy of Model 1 was sent in June and feedback requested.

− Meeting with the DVC (A) in August 2012 to discuss the models developed by the project and support for tabling the Blueprint at Policy and Programs Committee.

4.3 In progress:

The following articles are currently being written for submission to peer reviewed journals.

de la Harpe, B., & Fraser, K. Improving Australian course work masters programs. Horan, E., Edirisinghe, R., & Fraser, K. Developing a just in time, just for me course work masters in Sustainable Practice. Karpathiou, V., Richardson, J., & Fraser, K. Renewing a course work masters in Business (IT). Wingrove, D., Raso, V., & Fraser, K. Developing a flexible course work Masters of Property.

4.4 Audit against proposed dissemination activities outlined in the application

The Learning Segments Project application proposed two information dissemination activities and six engaged dissemination methods. In the tables below a stocktake is provided of the dissemination activities.

Table 1. Progress towards Information Dissemination activities

Information provision In progress

Achieved Comments

LTIF presentations, including the RMIT L&T Expo

� Presentations made to the University, College and Central groups throughout the course of the project, as outlined earlier in this dissemination section, including a presentation to the 2011 RMIT L&T Expo.

Articles submitted to journals in Business, DSC and SEH disciplines

� Planned article submissions in the coming year in those three disciplines and one article is under development for a journal in the discipline of higher education.

August 2012

Engaged dissemination methods were also proposed in the application. The table below is a stocktake of the engaged dissemination activities.

Table 2. Progress towards Engaged Dissemination methods

Engaged dissemination

methods

In progress

Achieved Comments

Provision of Blueprint for adaptation across RMIT and more widely

� The Blueprint is attached to this document as Appendix H.

Ongoing meetings with the leadership team and stakeholders, including current and prospective students as well as industry partners and professional associations and peak bodies

� An extensive series of progress and consultation meetings were held with university stakeholders as outlined earlier in this dissemination section. Current students and industry partners were interviewed.

Multi-disciplinary and participatory design with program teams and professional development support localized to help program teams adapt and contextualize for different disciplines

� Meetings held regularly with School based staff working with the project.

Ongoing involvement of PAC as reference members and touchstone

� Employers, some of whom were PAC members, were interviewed during the project.

Development of a staff professional development workshop on curriculum design for contemporary learning to be offered through the RMIT Open Program

� Workshop trialled with DSC Heads of School and Deputy Heads (L&T).

5 Evaluation of project outcomes The project team evaluated the project against 10 key evaluation questions submitted in the original proposal. This evaluation is summarised in Table 3 below. In addition, an evaluator external to the university interviewed the three program directors who took part in the project. The external evaluator summary of those interviews is located in Appendix G.

5.1 Key Evaluation questions

The Learning Segments Project application proposed that the evaluation of the project would answer ten key questions. Table 3 represents the project team’s response to each of those questions at the completion of the project. Table 3. Key project evaluation questions and their answers

Key evaluation question Progress at project completion. 1. To what extent have the intended

outcomes been achieved? The proposed project outcomes were achieved as described in sections 2 and 3 of this report.

2. Were there any unintended outcomes? What were they? How did they enhance or detract from the project?

The project team did not foresee the development of two models for coursework masters programs. The project initially developed a model which required changes to RMIT policy, processes and systems. In light of that development, the team developed a second model which can be implemented within RMIT University policy, processes and systems. The development of two models provides the University with flexibility in terms of adoption of the project outcomes.

3. What were the outcomes in terms of program design changes?

The three existing programs involved in the project developed program maps for the models and a new program under development applied Model 1, as described in section 2 above.

4. How engaged were the School Heads, Program Leaders, academic staff, PAC members and students in the project?

The Head of School for the Property Program, the Deputy Head (L&T) for the MBIT program, and the Discipline Head for the Masters of Sustainable Practice were significantly involved in the project. Each of the Program Directors was engaged with the project and the project had no difficulty finding student volunteers to interview. Locating employers who were willing to be interviewed was more challenging. The Masters of Business (IT) program located six employers and one professional body that were willing to be interviewed; the Masters of Property program located one employer and one professional body; and the Masters of Sustainable Practice program located one employer who was willing to be interviewed.

5. What factors were critical to the success of the project and what factors impeded the achievement of the project outcomes?

Factors successful to the project were: the employment of an experienced project manager; a strong project leadership team; having regular meetings with the program directors; providing research assistance to the program directors to undertake the review of discipline related coursework masters literature and a review of similar programs both nationally and internationally; and taking a

15

strengths/weakness/opportunities approach to each program so focussing on what is working well in the program as well and what could be improved. The project was impeded by the following factors:

• The difficulty in generating the interest of program directors in the project and the length of time it took to identify a program director in each College to take part in the project delayed the work of the project.

• The poor design of some courses and course guides meant that some of the project time was unexpectedly taken with re-working at the outcome level.

• Interviews with a smaller employer cohort restricted the generalisability of the data collected from employers.

• The decision in early January 2012 by the PVC College of Business to pursue a Business College structure for postgraduate programs and consequent request for us not to consult with Business College staff restricted feedback on the models.

• Not meeting with the project champions (PVCs) as a group may have limited the generation and cross fertilization of ideas at that level.

6. How did the project vary, if at all, from the original proposal and why? How did these changes affect the final outcome of the project? How did they affect the project management?

The original application was designed as a two year project. The LTIF funding committee approved funding for one year only. This resulted in the implementation phase of the project (year 2) being removed from the project. The impact was that program curriculum changes were not implemented. There was no impact on the project management.

7. How useful are the deliverables of the project for the relevant stakeholders?

Usefulness of the deliverables will become apparent over time. If the Blueprint is adopted at RMIT the impact of the project will be significant.

8. How will the project focus and outcomes be sustained beyond the project? To what extent are the project outcomes transferable to other institutions?

A discussion paper has been developed for Policy and Programs Committee recommending adoption of the Blueprint in the RMIT Program Development and Approvals Process. If adopted, the project outcomes will be embedded in RMIT University policy and processes. This would then ensure that the outcomes of the project are sustained as coursework masters programs are developed and re-developed. The Blueprint can be adopted or adapted by any higher education institution.

9. How could the project have been designed and managed differently and why?

The project could have been designed to develop a Blueprint first and then to select programs in which to trial implementation. Programs would then have piloted the models rather than focussing on the

16

development of the models.

10. What lessons have been learned from this project, particularly about project management and the processes of the project and how might these lessons be of assistance to other projects?

• Innovating in current programs is difficult when these programs have significant improvements to be made in fundamental curriculum elements such as quality and industry engagement.

• Program Directors will need an expert team of staff to assist them to develop innovative programs that meet the requirements of models 1 and 2.

• Future projects may need to minimise expectation of meeting with employers who employ RMIT graduates.

• Future projects need to confirm the availability of champions before including them in the project.

5.2 External consultant evaluation

The external consultant interviewed the three program directors who took part in the project. This evaluation reported on their perceptions of project outcomes, factors that helped and hindered the project, project design and suggestions for future projects. The summary of those interviews is located in Appendix G.

6 Budget report

• The amount of funds approved was $372,411 • The final amount of funds acquitted was $352,470.81

A Financial Statement is attached.

17

Appendix A1. Implementing Model 1 the Masters of Urban Design

Masters of Urban Design (MUD) The Masters of Urban Design will enrol its first cohort of students in Barcelona, Vietnam and Melbourne in 2013. The program provides an intensive and multidisciplinary environment to engage issues of contemporary urbanism through design practice. The program sits within RMIT’s newly initiated Urban Suite, an industry-linked laboratory for urban-based research, including postgraduate programs in Urban Development (School of Property Construction and Project Management, PCPM) and Urban Planning (School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, GSSSP). The program prepares students to integrate specialised knowledge from the disciplines of urban development, economics, policy and planning, into design proposals for complex urban projects. Those students who enrol in the program having successfully completed a Masters of Architecture or Masters of Landscape Architecture, can complete the Masters of Urban Design by enrolling in the second year of the program. Please refer to Figure 1 for an overview of the program structure. Figure 1. Masters of Urban Design program structure.

18

Model 1 Criteria DSC Masters of Urban Design (MUD) Core and Elective courses EITHER More than 50% of the masters program may comprise core courses but significant student choice is provided within 50% of their core courses.

One year program The six courses in this program are core with the three intensive studios (24 cpt each) providing significant choice for students in terms of the project brief, project site and technology used in the project. Two year program The program is comprised of 10 core courses and two electives that can be drawn from masters offerings in the Schools of A&D, GSSP and PCPM. The five studio core courses (24cpts each) provide significant choice for students in terms of the project brief, project site and technology used in the project.

OR No more than 50% of the masters program will comprise core courses, where core courses are required to be taken by all students in the program.

Delivery mode

Blended - No more than 50% of courses offered in a traditional, weekly/fortnightly, face to face, on campus mode. The other 50% of courses are offered in either fully online or intensive modes, or a combination of both.

One year program Three of the six courses (design studio courses) use a delivery method of weekly face to face meetings and a week long intensive studio. The other three core courses will be delivered primarily online. All courses use the learning management system. Two year program The delivery of the elective courses in the two year program will depend on the courses chosen. Seven core courses are taught in a traditional mode of face to face meetings, three of these (in the last year) are intensive consisting of weekly face to face meetings for six weeks plus a week long intensive. All courses use the learning management system. The Professional Practice 2 course will be reviewed to see if it can be offered in a fully online mode.

Intensive - All courses in intensive mode. Intensive mode may be organized in different ways, for example: 4 Saturdays throughout a semester; a week long session; two weekend classes within a study period.

Not applicable

Fully online - All courses fully online. Fully online courses will typically comprise ‘sub components or modules’ that students can complete in 8 – 20 hours of study.

Not applicable

Curriculum

AQF compliant Include program level learning outcomes as specified in AQF level 9 descriptors

Yes

Develop and assess AQF skill descriptors and generic learning outcomes in at least 50% of courses.

• 1 year (cognate) = min. 48cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min. 72cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min. 72cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min. 96cpts

All courses include skill learning outcomes which are aligned with level 9 AQF skill requirements.

19

Provide 12 credit points on AQF specified knowledge of research principles and methods (where research methods and principles are defined by the School).

One year program Those students entering with a M Arch or M LA are expected to have obtained research methods through required coursework If they do not have this experience they will be required to complete the ‘Case Studies in Urban Design’ course, a course from the two year program. Two year program - The 12 credit point Case Studies in Urban Design core course in the first year of this program embeds research methods and principles.

Incorporate research-based projects and/or capstone experiences and/or pieces of scholarship in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points in line with AQF application of knowledge and skill descriptors.

• 1 year (cognate) = 24 cpts in final study period

• 1.5 years (cognate) = min. 36 cpts with 24cpts in final study period plus 12cpts in end of study period 2 F/T, study period 4 P/T

• 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min. 36 cpts with 24cpts in final study period plus 12cpts in end of study period 2 F/T, study period 4 P/T

• 2 years (non-cognate) = min. 36 cpts with 24cpts in final study period plus 12cpts in end of study period 2 F/T, study period 4 P/T

•

One and two year programs The three studio projects (Vietnam Urban Design, Barcelona Urban Design and Melbourne Urban Design) totalling 72 credit points are research based projects which fulfil this requirement.

Student centred Each 12 credit point course includes a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6 course learning outcomes.

One and two year programs All courses have between 2 and 6 learning outcomes. Each course also has a list of graduate capabilities.

In each year of the program, courses include opportunities for students to seek and receive advice about their career aspirations and how their program might best support those aspirations.

One and two year programs Students will be asked to write a reflective piece which is to be submitted with a final design submission at the end of each year of the program. This reflective piece requires students to reflect on the work that they have done with respect to their progress in the course, career aspirations etc.

Programs engage students with technologies commonly used in the their profession.

One and two year programs Students work with digital modelling software in the design studio courses which is used professionally.

Where students are provided with the opportunity One and two year programs Students are able to specialise, if they wish to, through their choice of design

20

to choose a further specialisation within the program, a specialisation must comprise a minimum of 36 credit points (or more credit points if an external registering body requires more).

studio projects.

Urban, professional and global perspectives

Students will work in interdisciplinary teams in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points where interdisciplinary refers to the mix of professionals graduates are likely to work with professionally. To mitigate potential scheduling difficulties, one to two courses that provide interdisciplinary collaboration will be scheduled in the same semester for all coursework masters programs.

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts •

One and two year programs The student cohort will comprise students from different disciplines including architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning and property development. Most design studio courses will require students to work in teams.

Students have the opportunity to work in international and/or cross cultural groups in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points, either within the cohort, or with cohorts enrolled in similar programs in different countries.

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts •

One and two year programs The student cohorts from Vietnam, Barcelona and Melbourne will work together in the three Urban Design studio courses.

Students have the opportunity to engage in Work Integrated Learning activities that relate to their local urban environment

One and two year programs The three studio courses (Vietnam Urban Design, Barcelona Urban Design and Melbourne Urban Design) will involve students working on project sites in the three different countries. Industry partners will be engaged through the studio process.

Students have the opportunity to engage with global perspectives in the program. This may be achieved, for example, through the use of the international literature, program involvement of experts from different countries (including our own staff), working with students from other countries, and international internships/study opportunities

One and two year programs The program requires that the Vietnam, Barcelona and Melbourne student cohorts work together in each other’s country.

21

Assessment Continuous assessment with no one assessment task comprising more than 60% of the course assessment with an average of 3 assessment tasks per 12 credit point course

One and two year programs Each course has a minimum of 2 assessment tasks.

A mix of assessment task types in each course or if the same type of assessment task, they provide students the opportunity to improve their work

One and two year programs Some courses include a mix of assessment tasks while others, in particular the studio courses, have two assessments of the same activity, the studio product. The first assessment provides significant feedback for the students which they can use to inform their work for the second assessment in the course.

One assessment task to be completed early in a course in the ‘first year’ of the masters program

One and two year programs An early assessment task will be incorporated in at least one course in each year of the program.

Formative feedback rich with opportunities to reflect on and act upon feedback

One and two year programs The students receive weekly one to one feedback with the lecturer in each of their studio classes. Peer feedback is also a central element of all of the studio courses.

Opportunities to use concurrent work based evidence to fulfil assessment requirements through a choice of assessment tasks

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12 cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24 cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24 cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24 cpts

One and two year programs The ‘Professional Practice’ course in the first year of the two year program will provide students the opportunity to use work based evidence for an assessment task.

Opportunities to be assessed by self and other students as well as the lecturers in a program

One and two year programs Some design studio courses will include self and peer assessment.

Rubrics for each assessment task that articulate the assessment criteria and standards of performance used

One and two year programs Students will be given rubrics for each assessment task in each course.

22

Appendix A2. Implementing Model 1 in the Masters of Sustainable Practice

Masters of Sustainable Practice (MSP): Answering the future’s questions The Masters of Sustainable Practice brings together people with similar questions to work together to explore issues of sustainability. Problems are defined as projects. By working together on similar projects (e.g. water usage, food sustainability, liveable cities, waste management etc.) students explore the complexities of sustainability problems with people who have similar interests but come from a range of backgrounds. The program provides opportunities for action learning at work or other individual contexts. Masters of Sustainable Practice program structure. The program consists of 144 credit points. Graduate Certificate

• Sustainability body of practice 1 • Sustainability project 1 • Two electives

Graduate Diploma

• Sustainability body of practice 2 • Sustainability project 2 • Two electives

Masters

• Sustainability body of practice 3 • Sustainability project 3 • Sustainability project 4 • Exegesis

Model 1 Criteria SEH Masters of Sustainable Practice (MSP) Core and Elective courses EITHER More than 50% of the masters program may comprise core courses but significant student choice is provided within 50% of their core courses.

67% of the current program is comprised of core courses. Of those eight core courses, seven courses provide students with significant choice in a discipline area and the type of project (investigations, policy development, conference presentation, journal article, educational resource etc) for their core assessment tasks. Projects in the core courses can be work based. The four electives are chosen in line with the student’s career aspirations and can be taken from anywhere in the University’s masters course offerings.

OR No more than 50% of the masters2 program will comprise core

courses, where core courses are required to be taken by all students in the program.

Delivery mode

Blended - No more than 50% of courses offered in a traditional, weekly/fortnightly, face to face, on campus mode. The other 50% of courses are offered in either fully online or intensive modes, or a combination of both.

Seven of the eight core courses are delivered in intensive mode, (4 x Saturday per semester) combined with working at a distance with guidance. Core course 8 is completed at a distance ( a written exegesis). Electives may be taken from anywhere in the university at masters level and delivery mode depends on the offering School.

Intensive - All courses in intensive mode. Intensive mode may be organized in different ways, for example: 4 Saturdays throughout a semester; a week long session; two weekend classes within a study period.

Not applicable

Fully online - All courses fully online. Fully online courses will typically comprise ‘sub components or modules’ that students can complete in 8 – 20 hours of study.

Not applicable

Curriculum

AQF compliant Include program level learning outcomes as specified in AQF level 9 descriptors

These are planned to be in place by the 2015 deadline

Develop and assess AQF skill descriptors and generic learning outcomes in at least 50% of courses.

• 1 year (cognate) = min. 48cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min. 72cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min. 72cpts

Six of the eight core courses (or at least 50% of the total program) include skill learning outcomes that can be related to the AQF skill requirements. Depending on the four electives that students take, AQF skill requirements may be developed in more than six courses in the program.

2 For nested programs with Graduate Certificate and/or Graduate Diploma exit points, the 50% requirement refers to the masters program in its entirety.

24

• 2 years (non-cognate) = min. 96cpts Provide 12 credit points on AQF specified knowledge of research principles and methods (where research methods and principles are defined by the School).

By 2015 the program will include 12 credit points of research principles and methods.

Incorporate research-based projects and/or capstone experiences and/or pieces of scholarship in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points in line with AQF application of knowledge and skill descriptors.

• 1 year (cognate) = 24 cpts in final study period • 1.5 years (cognate) = min. 36 cpts with 24cpts in final study

period plus 12cpts in end of study period 2 F/T, study period 4 P/T



Seven of the eight core courses (84 credit points) include research based projects.

Student centred Each 12 credit point course includes a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6 course learning outcomes.

Two of the eight core courses have 7 learning outcomes. The rest of the courses have between 2 and 6 learning outcomes. It is planned to update the guidelines for the core courses in line for AQF compliance requirements. At that stage, 2 – 6 learning outcomes will be written for all core courses.

In each year of the program, courses include opportunities for students to seek and receive advice about their career aspirations and how their program might best support those aspirations.

Year 1. When students enrol in the program, they are invited to meet with the program director to discuss their career aspirations and determine how the program may best be customised to suit their needs. Year 2. During the core courses in all three years students informally seek feedback on career directions during the intensive face to face sessions. Year 3. In the final year of the program, students consult individually with the program director in their final core course, their exegesis.

Programs engage students with technologies commonly used in the their profession.

Students in the program engage with tools and techniques used in professional practice, such as EcoFootprint, TBL + 1, Factor 4, environmental auditing etc.

Where students are provided with the opportunity to choose a further specialisation within the program, a specialisation must comprise a minimum of 36 credit points (or more credit points if an external registering body requires more).

Students specialise in the program through their choice of projects in the core courses and through their choice of electives. The program itself does not offer specialisation strands.

25

Urban, professional and global perspectives Students will work in interdisciplinary teams in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points where interdisciplinary refers to the mix of professionals graduates are likely to work with professionally. To mitigate potential scheduling difficulties, one to two courses that provide interdisciplinary collaboration will be scheduled in the same semester for all coursework masters programs.

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts

Students enrolling in the program come to the program with similar interests (sustainability) but from a wide range of disciplines, from agriculture to fine art, from IT to public relations. In seven of the eight core courses, students are required to work in small groups on specified tasks.

Students will have the opportunity to work in cross cultural groups in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points, either within the cohort, or with cohorts enrolled in similar programs in different countries.

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts

The Program Director is currently developing with colleagues at Wismar University, Germany a twinning masters program where students living and working anywhere in the world may attend intensive sessions each semester in Melbourne, Wismar, Berlin, Ho Chi Min City and Indonesia. For those students who aren’t in a position to travel for their study, two core courses will include the opportunity for students to work in cross university project teams.

Students have the opportunity to engage in Work Integrated Learning activities that relate to their local urban environment

Industry experts teach into seven of the core courses and student project teams report their progress to industry experts and receive feedback and guidance.

Students have the opportunity to engage with global perspectives in the program. This may be achieved, for example, through the use of the international literature, program involvement of experts from different countries (including our own staff), working with students from other countries, and international internships/study opportunities

The program teaches students about international best practices. Industry experts incorporate into their teaching the latest technologies, research and local and overseas case studies in the core courses.

Assessment Continuous assessment with no one assessment task comprising more than 60% of the course assessment with an average of 3 assessment tasks per 12 credit point course

Currently all core courses comprise one assessment task only. It is planned to develop 2 – 3 assessment tasks for each core course. It is expected that some of these assessment tasks will include oral presentations, a curriculum vitae and project briefs.

A mix of assessment task types in each course or if the same type of assessment task, they provide students the opportunity to improve their work

When assessment tasks are developed for each of the core courses there will be a mix of assessment tasks in each core course.

One assessment task to be completed early in a course in the ‘first year’ of the masters program.

It is intended to introduce project briefs as an assessment task for each of the core courses and these project briefs will be assessed during the first six weeks of the semester.

Formative feedback rich with opportunities to reflect on and act In each of the seven core courses, during the intensive face to face sessions, students

26

upon feedback. provide formative feedback on the progress of each other’s projects, both formally as a whole group, and informally during breaks.

Opportunities to use concurrent work based evidence to fulfil assessment requirements through a choice of assessment tasks

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12 cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24 cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24 cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24 cpts

Students have the opportunity to use their current work place projects as the basis for their project work.

Opportunities to be assessed by self and other students as well as the lecturers in a program

In re-developing the assessment tasks for the core courses, students will be asked to self assess on all projects undertaken in the seven core courses. In the three courses that will include an oral presentation as an assessment task, students also will be peer assessed.

Rubrics for each assessment task that articulate the assessment criteria and standards of performance used.

Students will be given assessment criteria for all assessment tasks.

27 of 67

Appendix B1. Model 2 implementation in the Masters of Sustainable Practice

28 of 67

Appendix B2. Model 2 implementation by the Masters of Property

29 of 67

Appendix B3. Model 2 implementation by the Masters of Business (IT).

30 of 67

Appendix C. Themes from student interviews

Thirty-four students and recent graduates from the three programs were interviewed. Students enrolled in RMIT programs in order to:

• Change career • Deepen understanding and gain confidence within their current profession • Change the world

Analysis of the transcripts resulted in the identification of five themes. Basics (identified in all three programs) Our students expect:

• their programs to be relevant and up to date • their programs to be challenging and pitched at masters level, not undergraduate level • feedback that they can use • authentic assessment that is relevant to their professional work place • the program reality to match the program marketing

Choice (identified in two of the three programs) Our students value:

• more choice in terms of number of electives • more choice in terms of from where their electives can be drawn • specialisation streams to be offered

Advice (identified in two of the three programs) Our students would value more opportunities to regularly throughout their program discuss their aspirations through:

• course guidance • specialisation guidance • research pathways guidance

Industry connectedness (identified in two of the three programs) Our students would value more opportunities to:

• network with industry/employers • learn from industry • work in industry as part of their program

Employability skills (identified in the three programs) Our students expect our programs to teach them employability skills such as:

• Problem setting and solving • Critical thinking • Professional communication

31 of 67

Appendix D. Principles for the design of coursework Masters Programs

The Learning Segment Project identified six guiding principles that were used to underpin the two

models for RMIT coursework masters programs for working professionals. A contemporary 21st

century student learning experience is enabled through programs that are:

1. academically rigorous, well designed, cutting-edge and continually improving, with a

curriculum that is influenced by research and responds to emerging global trends, industry

requirements and student demand/interest

2. internationally and locally relevant, with a curriculum that is both global and urban in

perspective

3. employer and industry connected, engaging and integrating learning with work

4. just-in-time, flexible and technology enabled

5. just-for-me, providing program choice to suit individual needs as well as recognising the work

experience and professional development activities of students

6. policy compliant, explicitly responding to and evidencing AQF, TEQSA and RMIT requirements

(unless given exemption by the RMIT senior executive).

32 of 67

Appendix E. Characteristics of effective learners and strategies to support their learning

Alex Radloff, March, 2012. Effective learners are Active, Connected, Interactive, Reflective and able to Apply their knowledge and skills appropriately (ACIRA).

The table below describes the ACIRA characteristics of effective learners and outlines/lists strategies aligned to each characteristic that academic staff can use to support effective learning, where students construct meaning to achieve deep learning. It is based on a synthesis of current educational theory and research on factors that contribute to effective learning, and on curriculum design and teaching and assessment strategies that support effective learning. The reference list provides a selection of sources that address these topics.

Characteristics of effective learners

Exemplar strategies to support effective learning

Active – students: are autonomous, self directed, goal oriented, responsible for their own learning and aware of and in charge of the learning process; want and are able to make informed choices.

• Ask students to set long and short term learning goals and provide support and tools to help students articulate and set appropriate goals.

• Use learning contracts, study plans, etc. • Discuss time management and self-regulation, and

provide support and tools to help students to manage their time, their learning and themselves.

• Demystify the process of learning and discuss learning strategies best suited to the subject/learning task.

• Give students choices – e.g. project type and scope, sequence of courses, assessment tasks, etc.

• Set high expectations – e.g. through explaining assessment criteria and discussing assessment products of differing standards, and provide support and tools to help students set and meet appropriate learning/performance standards.

Connected – students: are oriented towards learning and open to new ideas; link new knowledge and ideas to past experiences; can recognise and make connections between work/study, between different subjects, and between learning and different facets of their life.

• Expose students to alternative viewpoints on significant disciplinary issues and provide support and tools for students to make judgments.

• Involve students in discussion and debate and provide support and tools to help students develop appropriate debating skills.

• Make clear the connections between key ideas/concepts in the subject.

• Make clear the connections between different subjects.

• Ask students to make connections between what they are studying and their own work/life experiences.

33 of 67

• Provide opportunities for students to experience/engage in/undertake work integrated learning.

Interactive – students: learn with and from others; engage with new knowledge and ideas; develop professional networks.

• Encourage students to form peer learning groups. • Require students to use a wide range of learning

(re)sources and provide support and tools to help them use these effectively (info literacy skills)

• Include peer feedback as part of formative and/or summative assessment and provide support and tools to help students give and use peer feedback appropriately.

• Ask students to undertake group work and provide support and tools to help students to work effectively in groups.

• Builds meaningful relationships between teachers and students.

• Engage students in learning – e.g. relate learning to real life problems, organise group competitions, present puzzles, dilemmas.

Reflective – students: seek and use feedback from different sources, review learning experiences (“what have I learned, what does it mean, how can I use it?”), revise ideas, rethink attitudes and beliefs; consider different perspectives/solutions.

• Allow time for students to reflect and provide support and tools to help them develop their critical reflection skills.

• Ensure that students receive early, regular and prompt feedback from multiple sources.

• Provide students with opportunities to use feedback to improve their work.

• Ask students to use feedback to reflect upon and improve their learning strategies.

• Encourage students to review and revise their thinking/ideas in light of new learning.

Applicable (Able to apply new knowledge and skills) – students: are action/problem solving oriented, creative and innovative; design or adapt tools/processes to solve problems.

• Expose students to novel or unfamiliar situations and provide support and tools to help them adapt.

• Require students to solve authentic/real life problems and provide support and tools for effective problem finding and solving strategies

• Ask students to create something new and provide support and tools to help them to be creative.

• Ask students to design innovative solutions to existing problems.

Selected references

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How learning works. 7 research based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass-Bass.

Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., & Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for College faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bembenutty, H. (2011). Self-regulation of learning in postsecondary education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, Summer, 126, 3-8.

34 of 67

Brookfield, S.D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hattie, J. (2011). Which strategies best enhance teaching and learning in Higher Education? In D. Mashek and E.Y. Hammer (Eds.), Empirical research in teaching and learning: Contributions from Social Psychology. London: Blackwell Publishing, pp.130-142.

Hattie, J.A.C., & Timperley, H. (2006). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McMillan, W.J. (2010). 'Your thrust is to understand' - How academically successful students learn. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-13.

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nicol, D.J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31,199–218.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-240.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2), 73-86.

35 of 67

Appendix F. Implementing university wide change.

Kotter in his seminal book “Leading Change” (1996) argues that 8 steps are needed to effectively guide and implement organisational change through to a point where the change is part of the culture. Each of these steps is explained in this Appendix.

Step 1 Establishing a sense of urgency “Establishing a sense of urgency is crucial to gaining needed cooperation. With complacency high, transformations usually go nowhere because few people are even interested in working on the change problem” (page 36).

Step 2 Creating a Guiding Coalition “ Putting Together The Guiding Coalition The first step in putting together the kind of team that can direct a change effort is to find the right membership. Four key characteristics seem to be essential to effective guiding coalitions. They are:

1. Position power: Are enough key players on board, especially the main line managers, so that those left out cannot easily block progress?

2. Expertise: Are the various points of view – in terms of discipline, work experience, nationality etc. – relevant to the task at hand adequately represented so that informed, intelligent decisions will be made?

3. Credibility: Does the group have enough people with good reputations in the firm so that its pronoucements will be taken seriously by other employees?

4. Leadership: Does the group include enough proven leaders to be able to drive the change process?” (page 57)

“Building a Coalition That Can Make Change Happen Find the Right People

� With strong position power, broad expertise and high credibility � With leadership and management skills, especially the former

Create Trust

� Through carefully planned off-site events � With lots of talk and joint activities

Develop a Common Goal

� Sensible to the head � Appealing to the heart” (page 66) �

Step 3 Developing a Vision and Strategy “Characteristics of an Effective Vision

� Imaginable: Conveys a picture of what the future will look like. � Desirable: Appeals to the long-term interests of employees, customers, stockholders,

and others who have a stake in the enterprise

36 of 67

� Feasible: Comprises realistic, attainable goals � Focused: Is clear enough to provide guidance in decision making � Flexible: Is general enough to allow individual initiative and alternative responses in

light of changing conditions � Communicable: Is easy to communicate; can be successfully explained within five

minutes (page 72) “Creating an Effective Vision

� First draft: The process often starts with an initial statement from a single individual, reflecting both his or her dreams and real marketplace needs.

� Role of the guiding coalition: The first draft is always modelled over time by the guiding coalition or an even larger group of people.

� Importance of teamwork: The group process never works will without a minimum of effective teamwork.

� Role of the head and the heart: Both analytical thinking and a lot of dreaming are essential throughout the activity.

� Messiness of the process: Vision creation is usually a process of two steps forward and one back, movement to the left and then to the right.

� Time frame: Vision is never created in a single meeting. The activity takes months, sometimes years.

� End product: The process results in a direction for the future that is desirable, feasible, focused, flexible, and is conveyable in five minutes or less”. (page 81)

Step 4 Communicating the Change Vision “Key Elements in the Effective Communication of Vision

� Simplicity: All jargon and technobabble must be eliminated. � Metaphor, analogy, and example: A verbal picture is worth a thousand words. � Multiple forums: Big meetings and small, memos and newspapers, formal and informal

interaction – all are effective for spreading the word. � Repetition: Ideas sink in deeply only after they have been heard many times. � Leadership by example: Behaviour from important people that is inconsistent with the

vision overwhelms other forms of communication. � Explanation of seeming inconsistencies: Unaddressed inconsistencies undermine the

credibility of all communication. � Give-and-take: Two-way communication is always more powerful than one-way

communication.” (page 90)

Step 5 Empowering Employees for Broad-Based Action “Barriers to Empowerment Major internal transformation rarely happens unless many people assist. Yet employees generally won’t help, or can’t help, if they feel relatively powerless. Hence the relevance of empowerment”. (P 102). “Empowering People to Effect Change

� Communicate a sensible vision to employees: If employees have a shared sense of purpose, it will be easier to initiate actions to achieve that purpose.

� Make structures compatible with the vision: Unaligned structures block needed action. � Provide the training employees need: Without the right skills and attitudes, people feel

disempowered. � Align information and personnel systems to the vision: Unaligned systems also block

37 of 67

needed action. � Confront supervisors who undercut needed change: Nothing disempowers people the

way a bad boss can. (page 115)

Step 6 Generating Short-Term Wins “The Role of Short-Term Wins

� Provide evidence that sacrifices are worth it: Wins greatly help justify the short-term costs involved.

� Reward change agents with a pat on the back: After a lot of hard work, positive feedback builds morale and motivation.

� Help fine-tune vision and strategies: Short-term wins give the guiding coalition concrete data on the viability of their ideas.

� Undermine cynics and self-serving resisters: Clear improvements in performance make it difficult for people to block needed change.

� Keep bosses on board: Provides those higher in the hierarchy with evidence that the transformation is on track.

� Build momentum: Turns neutrals into supporters, reluctant supporters into active helpers, etc”. (page 123)

Step 7 Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change “What Stage 7 Looks Like in Successful, Major Change Effort

� More change, not less: The guiding coalition uses the credibility afforded by short-term wins to tackle additional and bigger change projects.

� More help: Additional people are brought in, promoted, and developed to help with all the changes.

� Leadership from senior management: Senior people focus on maintaining clarity of share purpose for the overall effort and keeping urgency levels up.

� Project management and leadership from below: Lower ranks in the hierarch both provide leadership for specific projects and manage those projects.

� Reduction of unnecessary interdependencies: To make change easier in both the short and long term, managers identify unnecessary interdependencies and eliminate them.” (page 143)

Step 8 Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture “Anchoring Change in a Culture

� Comes last, not first: Most alterations in norms and shared values come at the end of the transformation process.

� Depends on the results: New approaches usually sink into a culture only after it’s very clear that they work and are superior to old methods.

� Requires a lot of talk: Without verbal instruction and support, people are often reluctant to admit the validity of new practices.

� May involve turnover: Sometimes the only way to change a culture is to change key people.

� Makes decisions on succession crucial: If promotion processes are not changed to be compatible with the new practices, the old culture will reassert itself”. (page 157)

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Massachuetts

38 of 67

Appendix G. External consultant evaluation

Summary of Program Director interviews The three Program Directors involved in the Learning Segments project were interviewed individually by the external consultant during the last week of February and the first week of March. The purpose of the interviews was to gather feedback from the Program Directors as part of project evaluation. The participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and that the source of individual comments would not be identified. The topics covered were based on the Draft Evaluation Plan. Interviews ranged in length from 40 mins to 1 hour and 10 mins. The consultant made notes of the main discussion points during and immediately after each interview. Below is a summary of Program Directors’ responses. Form of involvement in the project

Focus on own program 1. Working on ideas and strategies for improving own program. 2. Reviewing individual courses in own program to see where new ideas could fit. 3. Establishing a steering committee of about 12 staff to work on program redevelopment.

Focus on curriculum change in general 1. Contributing ideas about curriculum and methods of program delivery. 2. Discussing each step of the evolution of Segments Model.

Motivation for involvement

1. Volunteered following general invitation to participate in order to get help for own program.

2. Asked to participate because program was going through a review. The Head of School has been an active participant in project.

3. Directed to participate by College with limited discussion. Not clear why own program was selected – possibly because of previous offshore experience with segmented and flexibly delivered programs.

Gains and achievements to date

1. Documented what has already been done to increase program flexibility. 2. Reviewed program in tandem with accreditation process. 3. Fleshed out program capabilities. 4. Had the opportunity to create different segments for own program. 5. Considered the possibility of developing segments across programs within and across

Colleges. 6. Surveyed students and used data to make changes to program. 7. Gained a better understanding of the general landscape mainly nationally and what

other similar programs are doing. 8. Gained a better understanding of where own program fits in and about AQF and

achieving appropriate levels of teaching. 9. Learned how to implement change. 10. Reaffirmed the validity of previous understandings of frustrations and lack of direction in

program planning.

39 of 67

Planned program changes

1. Revise program capabilities. 2. Explore twinning possibilities with overseas institutions. 3. Get program team to consider different ways of doing things with a focus on curriculum

developments in a rapidly evolving discipline/profession. 4. Undertake peer review of the Program Director role within the program. 5. Develop specialised areas into electives (project helped to achieve this goal. 6. No program changes to date. Some may be made in the future subject to College

approval. Other outcomes of involvement

1. Assistance from curriculum design consultant and Kym to introduce useful new teaching/learning strategies into program.

2. Recognition of the amount of paperwork required for segmented learning in order to ensure that they are connected

3. Evidence that students want specialization in larger chunks and not segmentation. Factors that helped/hindered involvement

Helped 1. Being prompted to look at own program in new and different ways. 2. Raising awareness by program team and College of new curriculum ideas. 3. Having funding to pay for research assistant; to undertake research on own program; to

work with government body on aligning program; and to attend overseas conference on global education.

Hindered

1. Workload issues interfered with time available for project. 2. Time constraints and competing priorities. 3. Timing of project (too late in the year?) and its starting date (end of July?) 4. Although project provided funding, difficult to get replacement staff (notice too short) 5. Lack of clarity as to scope of project – is it program wide, college wide or university

wide. 6. Changing expectations of what project aimed to achieve leading to confusion. 7. Lack of clarity about the relationship between the three programs participating in the

project; and also their relationship to other programs across the university. 8. No direct contact with Project Leader (Barbara) who could explain project goals. 9. Lack of broader awareness of project due to invisibility of leaders at different levels. 10. Mind set of staff who do not understand the need for change; may feel threatened by

new ideas; and feel comfortable with the status quo and thus see no need for change.

Value of program changes to date

1. Very useful ideas but need more work to implement. 2. Raised awareness of the need for change. 3. Cemented/reinforced existing ideas and put into place what had been suggested two

years previously. 4. Clarified understanding of the structure of specialized sections of program. 5. Identified and addressed student needs.

Feedback on project design and management

40 of 67

1. Thorough and inclusive approach to the management of the project. 2. Discuss at the start of project the project aims, scope and the process to be followed 3. Make project more visible within university - leaders at various levels need to discuss

and champion project. 4. Emphasise innovative nature of project more. 5. Build in more cross program interaction – meet at the start of the project; have

brainstorming sessions; and meet regularly to review progress. 6. Be clear about how project funding was to be allocated. 7. Provide more information about how Program Directors could get administrative

assistance. 8. Provide advice on how to get information from students and how to interact with

industry to establish personal relationships. Suggestions for management of similar future projects

1. Build on work done on this project to get maximum benefits. 2. Provide resources at university level to achieve project potential. 3. Focus on engaging staff to make this kind of project activity a priority. 4. Look for commonalities in content across Schools/Colleges. 5. Provide a project management timeline with deliverables at the start of project. 6. Establish regular meeting times with all participants. 7. Ensure that staff retain their focus on project goals and not become process driven.

Additional comments

1. Happy to be involved in other similar projects. 2. Provision of funding for time release is a good idea.

Prepared by Alex Radloff 19 March, 2012

41 of 67

Appendix H. Blueprint

Blueprint: The RMIT Coursework Masters Models

for Working Professionals

1. Introduction

The LTIF funded “Learning Segments Project” was tasked with developing an innovative structure for

RMIT masters coursework programs for professionals in full time employment, studying part time. The

proposed models outlined in this document respond to student and employer needs and are based on

the literature and best practice in the sector.

In developing the models described in this consultation document, the project worked with three masters

coursework programs, one from each College; M. of Sustainable Practice (SEH), M. of Property (DSC),

and M. of Business (IT) (Business). The project team reviewed relevant literature including the AQF,

interviewed students and employers of our graduates, reviewed innovations in Australian and overseas

masters coursework programs, and reviewed Australian and overseas programs in discipline areas that

were the same as or similar to the three programs in the project.

From this work, two draft models were developed and further refined through an extensive consultation

process with senior managers, central groups, program directors, and deputy heads (L&T). Model 1 can

be implemented under current RMIT policies, processes and systems and Model 2 requires policy,

process and system change.

2. Contemporary RMIT Coursework Masters Programs for the working professional

The RMIT coursework masters program for working professionals offers students an experience that is

urban in perspective, and connected through active partnerships with professions, industries and

organisations, and also provide students with a global passport to learning and work.

The University recognises that working professionals who study face significant complexities in

balancing their work, family and postgraduate commitments. RMIT coursework masters programs are

designed to meet the needs of working professionals, providing flexibility and choice for students.

42 of 67

The findings of the Learning Segment Project identified six guiding principles that underpin RMIT

coursework masters programs for working professionals. A contemporary 21st

century student

learning experience is enabled through programs that are:

7. academically rigorous, well designed, cutting-edge and continually improving, with a

curriculum that is influenced by research and responds to emerging global trends, industry

requirements and student demand/interest

8. internationally and locally relevant, with a curriculum that is both global and urban in

perspective

9. employer and industry connected, engaging and integrating learning with work

10. just-in-time, flexible and technology enabled

11. just-for-me, providing program choice to suit individual needs as well as recognising student

work experience and professional development activities

12. policy compliant, explicitly responding to and evidencing AQF, TEQSA and RMIT requirements

(unless given exemption by the RMIT senior executive).

A transformative student learning experience is enabled through:

� significant student choice in 50% of each program

� mixed teaching modes

� employability skills developed in at least 50% of the program and applied in real world settings

� opportunities to use concurrent work based evidence for assessment tasks

� an introduction to research methods and principles that can be applied in the workplace

� work related projects in 25% of the program

� international, interdisciplinary and cross cultural group work that reflects professional settings

� opportunities for part of the program to be studied overseas.

If RMIT coursework masters programs are to be contemporary, global, urban and industry connected,

what will our programs look like?

Programs would be relevant, high quality and viable, as well as student-centred.

Relevant – Students want programs that are up to date and will give them the opportunity to actively

develop professional practice knowledge and skills in authentic, experiential ways. Many of our Masters

students work in global companies and need to work creatively and purposefully to solve complex and

challenging issues. Programs need to:

• Incorporate experiences where students, academics, and key stakeholders (employers, clients,

community) work in interdisciplinary teams over several days to solve real life professional

problems.

• Provide opportunities for students to undertake work based projects.

• Provide up to date resources.

43 of 67

• Facilitate student use of: RPL; relevant, concurrent, continuing professional development; and

work based tasks as evidence for course assessment tasks.

• Explore opportunities to collaborate with other universities, in particular international

universities, to design collaborative programs so providing students with internationally relevant

curriculum, opportunities to study overseas and cross-cultural learning opportunities.

High quality – The requirements of the AQF, forthcoming TEQSA standards and external accrediting

bodies help us to produce high quality programs. The Course Experience Questionnaire also illustrates

six factors that contribute to a high quality student experience (http://www.teaching.rmit.edu.au/

progimprov/ceqss.html). In order to achieve a high quality program, programs need to respond to the

AQF and TEQSA requirements and also focus on each of the factors below:

• Good Teaching

• Clear Goals and Standards

• Appropriate Workload

• Appropriate Assessment

• Generic Skills

• Overall Satisfaction

Viable – Within the current and foreseeable financial constraints of the sector, programs need to be

viable. To enure this. programs need to:

• Be designed in light of industry/student demand. This approach moves the university away from

supply designed programs to demand designed programs. No longer can we design programs

that we can teach but students and industry don’t demand.

• Be effectively managed and administered to ensure that they deliver on their promises and

satisfy the high expectations of stakeholders.

• Work with industry where possible to meet their future needs. For example, in consultation with

industry/professions programs could develop single courses that meet continuing professional

development needs. Professionals who are not enrolled in a program would have the

opportunity to enroll in a single course and have the option of completing the course

assessment for credit, or completing the course without doing the assessment and therefore

would receive a transcript of completion but not with credit towards a graduate certificate.

Student centred – All of the above speak to a student centred approach to program design. In addition,

programs need to:

• Address the work and family commitments of our students by providing them with different

modes of studying their program: for example some RMIT programs allow their students to

choose between studying fully online or fully face to face or a combination of both.

• Provide significant choice including in assessment so that students can customize their program

to meet their individual needs, particular professional interests and aspirations.

44 of 67

• Provide students with guidance and support as they design and navigate their chosen program.

The following models are designed to ensure that RMIT coursework masters programs are attractive to

a discerning cohort of students who are professionals in full time employment and offer exciting, flexible

learning opportunities.

3. Model 1

Model 1 allows Schools to develop new or redeveloped, professionally oriented, coursework Masters

Programs that are student centred within current RMIT policies/processes/structures.

3.1 Model 1 Requirements

Requirements for Model 1 are set-out in relation to core and elective courses, mode, curriculum design,

and assessment. Requirements for Model 1 are summarised below. Specific details for each

requirement and the rationale are provided in Appendix 1.

a) Core and elective courses including specialisations (refer to Appendix 1)

Masters coursework programs are well designed and just for me, providing students with

choice in their program:

EITHER THROUGH

More than 50% of the masters program may comprise core courses but significant student

choice is provided within 50% of their core courses. For example students may have a choice of

project topic, or choice of assessment task type within courses.

OR THROUGH

No more than 50% of the masters3 program will comprise core courses, where core courses are

required to be taken by all students in the program.

IN BOTH CASES

Where masters programs offer students further choice of specialisation within the program,

those specialisations will be counted as student choice (i.e. even if the course is core for

students doing the specialisation).

b) Mode (refer to Appendix 1)


45 of 67

Masters coursework programs are well designed, just in time and just for me, providing

students with significant flexibility in that programs are offered in one (or more) of three modes:

BLENDED MODE

No more than 50% of courses offered in a traditional, weekly/fortnightly, face to face, on campus

mode. The other 50% of courses are offered in either fully online or intensive modes, or a

combination of both. (See 3.1.2 a)

INTENSIVE MODE

All courses in intensive mode. Intensive mode may be organized in different ways, for example:

4 Saturdays throughout a semester; a week long session; two weekend classes within a study

period. (See 3.1.2 b)

ONLINE MODE

All courses fully online. Wherever possible fully online courses will typically comprise ‘sub

components or modules’ each of which can be completed in 8 – 20 hours of study. (See 3.1.2 c)

c) Curriculum design

The curriculum design of RMIT Masters coursework programs demonstrates program relevance,

quality and responsiveness to student and employer interests. Programs are well designed,

cutting edge, internationally relevant, employer, urban and industry connected, and:

1. are AQF compliant

- Include program level learning outcomes as specified in AQF level 9 descriptors (AQF,

2011:58)

- Develop and assess AQF skill descriptors and generic learning outcomes in at least 50%

of courses. This will be reflected in the course level learning outcomes, learning

activities, assessment tasks and assessment criteria/rubrics (please refer to Appendix 1

for credit point requirements).

- Provide at least 12 credit points on AQF specified knowledge of research principles and

methods (where research methods and principles are defined by the School). This

provision may comprise a single course or research methods and principles may be

embedded in more than one course to the equivalent of at least 12 credit points (please

refer to Appendix 1 for credit point requirements)

- Incorporate research-based projects and/or capstone experiences and/or pieces of

scholarship in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points in line with AQF application

of knowledge and skill descriptors (please refer to Appendix 1 for credit point

requirements).

2. include a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6 course learning outcomes in each 12 credit

point course. Each course learning outcome must align with at least one program learning

outcome.

46 of 67

3. in each year of the program courses include opportunities for students to seek and receive

advice about their career aspirations and how their program might best support those

aspirations.

4. engage students with technologies commonly used in the their profession.

5. where students are provided with the opportunity to choose a further specialisation within

the program, a specialisation must comprise a minimum of 36 credit points (or more credit

points if an external registering body requires more).

6. Include opportunities for students to experience urban, professional and global perspectives

such that students:

- work in interdisciplinary teams in courses totalling at least 12 – 24 credit points where

interdisciplinary refers to the mix of professionals graduates are likely to work with

professionally. To mitigate potential scheduling difficulties, one to two courses that

provide interdisciplinary collaboration will be scheduled in the same semester for all

coursework masters programs. (please refer to Appendix 1 for credit point and timing

requirements).

- work in international and/or cross cultural groups in courses totalling at least 12 – 24

credit points, either within the cohort, or with cohorts enrolled in similar programs in

different countries. (please refer to Appendix 1 for credit point and timing

requirements).

- engage in Work Integrated Learning activities (please refer to Appendix 1 for credit point

requirements) that relate to their local urban environment.

- engage with global perspectives in the program. This may be achieved, for example,

through the use of the international literature, program involvement of experts from

different countries (including our own staff), working with students from other countries,

and international internships/study opportunities.

d) Assessment

The assessment of RMIT Masters coursework programs demonstrates contemporary pedagogic

thinking in the field. Masters coursework programs are well designed, just for me and

employer and industry connected, providing students with:

1. Continuous assessment with no one assessment task comprising more than 60% of the

course assessment with an average of 3 assessment tasks per 12 credit point course.

2. A mix of assessment task types in each course or if the same type of assessment task, they

provide students the opportunity to improve their work (please refer to Appendix 3 for

assessment task examples).

3. One assessment task to be completed early in each course in the ‘first year’ of the masters

program.

4. Formative feedback rich with opportunities to reflect on and act upon feedback.

5. Opportunities to use concurrent work based evidence to fulfil assessment requirements

through a choice of assessment tasks (please refer to Appendix 1 for credit point

requirements).

47 of 67

6. Opportunities to be assessed by self and peers as well as lecturers in a program.

7. Rubrics for each assessment task that articulate the assessment criteria and standards of

performance used.

3.2 Model 1 Checklist

Model 1 requirement Question Response

Core and elective courses

Either choice within 50% of core

courses in the program

Either

Which 50% of the core courses

have choice within them and

what is the choice in each

course?

Or choice through 50% of

courses are electives.

Or

What percentage of program

courses are core? From what

electives/specialisation streams

can students choose?

Mode

Blended – no more than 50% of

courses can be taught in

traditional weekly/fortnightly face

to face, on campus mode.

What percentage of program

courses are taught in intensive

or online mode? What are the

names and codes of these

courses?

Intensive Are all program courses

delivered in intensive mode?

Online Are all program courses

delivered fully online?

Curriculum

1) AQF Compliant

- program learning outcomes Does your program guide

include AQF level 9 learning

outcome descriptors?

- AQF skill descriptors Do at least 50% of your core

courses have AQF skill learning

outcomes? If so, which courses

include AQF skill learning

outcomes?

- 12 credit points minimum of

research methods and principles

In this program which course or

courses include research

methods and principles? Please

indicate the number of credit

points dedicated to research

methods and principles in each

course listed.

48 of 67

- 12 – 24 credit points of

research based

projects/capstone

projects/pieces of scholarship

Which courses in this program

include research based

projects/capstone

projects/pieces of scholarship?

How many credit points does

each course have?

2) 2 – 6 learning outcomes per

12 credit point course

Do all courses offered in your

program have between 2 and 6

learning outcomes?

3) Courses that provide students

opportunities to seek advice.

In each year of the program,

which courses allow students to

seek and receive advice on

career aspirations and how the

program might best support the

aspirations? How does each

course do this?

4) engage students with

technologies commonly used in

their profession

Which course engage students

with technologies commonly

used in their profession and for

each course, which technology is

used?

5) a specialisation, if offered,

must comprise a minimum of 36

credit points.

If the program offers one or more

specialisation, does each

specialisation comprise at least

36 credit points?

6) urban, professional and global

perspectives

- interdisciplinary teams

In which courses does the

program provide students the

opportunity to work in

interdisciplinary teams? How

many credit points does each

course have? When in the

program are those courses

delivered?

- international or cross cultural

groups

In which courses does the

program provide students the

opportunity to work in

international or cross cultural

teams? How many credit points

does each course have? When

in the program are those courses

delivered?

- work integrated learning

activities

In which course does the

program provide work integrated

learning activities? Please

indicate what the activities are in

each course and the number of

credit points for each course.

- global perspectives In which courses are students

asked to engage with global

perspectives? Please indicate

how this happens in each course

that you name.

49 of 67

Assessment

1) average 3 assessment tasks

per 12 credit point course, no

more than 60% on one

assessment task

Does any course in the program

include an assessment task of

more than 60% of the

assessment?

Does the program average three

assessment tasks per course?

2) A mix of assessment tasks in

each course.

In which courses is there not a

mix of assessment tasks. For

those courses, indicate how

doing the same assessment task

type assists the student to

improve their work.

3) One assessment task to be

completed early in the first year

of the program.

What assessment tasks are

required early in the semester

for each course in the first year

of the program?

4) Formative feedback In which courses are students

given the opportunity to reflect

upon feedback and act on that

feedback? For each course

listed, how can students use the

feedback?

5) Concurrent work based

evidence to fulfill assessment

requrements.

In which courses are students

given the choice to use

concurrent work based evidence

to fulfill an assessment

requirement?

6) Self and peer assessment. In which courses are students

required to self and peer assess

their work?

7) Rubrics Do all assessment tasks in all

courses include rubrics that

articulate the assessment criteria

and standards of performance?

50 of 67

3.1.2 Model 1 example programs

Course – fully online

Course – intensive mode

Course – face to face weekly/fortnightly mode

Course –interdisciplinary collaborative teamwork

The examples below indicate how programs in the 3 different modes might meet the requirements of Model 1. All courses in these examples,

regardless of mode, require students to engage with disciplinary knowledge/content. Courses are specified as teaching and assessing AQF skill

requirements and as applying knowledge and skills. It is also possible that other courses also require students to learn skills and apply skills and

knowledge.

a) Blended Mode example – cognate background, 144 credit points

Semester 1, Year 1 Semester 2, Year 1 Semester 1, Year 2 Semester 2, Year 2 Semester 1, Year 3 Semester 2, Year 3

Course 1 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 3 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 5 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 7 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 9 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 11 (24)

requires students to

apply their knowledge

and skills in

interdisciplinary teams

Course 2 (12) Course 4 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 6 (12)

Research methods

and principles

Course 8 (12)


apply their knowledge

and skills in a WIL

context

Course 10 (12)

b) Intensive Mode example – cognate background, 144 credit points, part time completed in 12 months

Semester 1,Yr 1 Spring study per. Yr 1 Semester 2,Yr 1 Summer study per. Yr 1

Course 1 (36)

One month full time, face to face,

36 credit point course which

develops disciplinary knowledge

including research methods and

principles and also develops AQF

Course 2 (36)

One month full time face to face

course which develops

disciplinary knowledge including

research methods and principles

and requires that students apply

Course 3 (36)



disciplinary knowledge and AQF

skills and requires students to

apply them in a WIL context

Course 4 (36)



disciplinary knowledge and

requires that students apply their

knowledge and skills in

51 of 67

skills. Students are expected to

apply the knowledge and skills in

a WIL context

knowledge and skills in a WIL

context

interdisciplinary teams

c) Fully online Mode example – cognate background, 144 credit points

Semester 1, Year 1 Semester 2, Year 1 Semester 1, Year 2 Semester 2, Year 2 Semester 1, Year 3 Semester 2, Year 3

Course 1 (12) Course 3 (12)

includes research

methods and

principles

Course 5 (12)

includes research

methods and

principles

Course 7 (24)

develops AQF skills

and requires students

to apply knowledge

and skills in an

interdisciplinary team

context

Course 8 (12)

includes research

methods and

principles

Course 10 (24)

develops AQF skills

and requires students

to apply knowledge

and skills in an

interdisciplinary team

context

Course 2 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 4 (12)

develops AQF skills

Course 6 (12)


work in a WIL context

Course 9 (12)

52 of 67

4. Model 2

Model 2 allows Schools to develop new or redeveloped, professionally oriented, coursework Masters

Programs that are student centred.

Model 2 incorporates:

• short credit bearing courses of fewer than 12 credit points,

• courses dedicated entirely to integrative assessment tasks (refer to Appendix 3);

• courses focused on supporting students entering masters programs; and

• courses focused on supporting students to successfully transition from study to professional

practice.

Short credit bearing courses may be used for:

• intensive mode study where students meet face to face for short periods of time up to a week.

• industry emerging trends and hot topics which may remain current for short periods of time.

• ‘just in time’ study opportunities over several years of their program (for example, research

methods and principles courses might usefully be taught in 2 or 3 short courses over several

years rather than in one course in one semester).

4.1 Model 2 Requirements

Requirements for Model 2 are summarised below. Specific detail for each requirement and its rationale

is provided in Appendix 2.

a) Short Credit bearing courses of fewer than 12 credit points

Courses of fewer than 12 credit points are referred to in this document as ‘short credit bearing

courses’. Programs using Model 2 will include some short credit bearing courses.

1. Short credit bearing courses have an even number of credit points allocated, with a

minimum of 2 credit points and a maximum of 6 credit points, where 2 credit points

represent 20 hours of student engagement

2. A maximum of 50% of program credit points can be allocated to short credit bearing

courses

3. Each short credit bearing course aligns with at least one AQF program learning outcome

4. At least 3 short credit bearing courses will be available in a fully online mode

5. At least 3 fully online short credit bearing courses will be available for study in each

summer and spring study periods (this does not preclude them from being available in

semesters 1 and 2 as well)

6. Each short credit bearing course will include pro rata the number of assessment tasks

required by RMIT assessment policy and College Assessment Guidelines.

b) Entry and Exit courses

1) Each program provides at least 12 credit points of courses (may or may not be short, credit

bearing courses) that specifically assist students to determine their individual study needs

53 of 67

and provide guidance to achieve their career aspirations (e.g. evaluate their study and

career needs, diagnose strengths and weaknesses and develop a personal learning

contract/ plan for their studies). This course is called an Entry course in Figure 1.

2) Each program provides at least 12 credit points of courses (may or may not be several short

credit bearing courses) that specifically assist students to reflect on their learning and

identify how their learning has or will influence their professional practice. This course also

assists students to update their CVs/professional portfolios and is called an Exit course in

Figure 1.

c) Integrative Assessment courses

Integrative assessment courses provide students with the opportunity to integrate and apply the

knowledge and skills that they have learnt across courses and within their program (Please refer

to Appendix 3). The courses do not introduce new ‘content’. These courses meet the level 9

AQF application of knowledge and skills requirements.

1. Each program will include a minimum of three integrative assessment courses of at least 12

credit points each.

2. Each integrative assessment will have a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 assessment

tasks.

3. At least one integrative assessment course will be a capstone experience or a research

based project or a piece of scholarship (in line with the AQF requirements and RMIT policy)

4. Cumulatively, the integrative assessment courses address all program learning outcomes.

54 of 67

4.2 Pictorial representation of Model 2

Figure 1 Model 2 implementation of a 144 credit point masters program for working professionals

55 of 67

Model 2 is represented visually in Figure 1 above. On the left hand side of the figure are the program

level outcomes that are AQF aligned. On the right hand side of the figure are the courses in which

students enroll. Some courses will be required while others will provide students with options and

choices. Some courses may need to be taken at specific times in the program while others may be

taken at any time in the program.

Courses

In Figure 1 four types of courses are portrayed. Each course must align with at least one program

learning outcome. Each type of course is required in this model.

Each program starts with one or more Entry courses which support the

student to think about what they want to achieve through completing the

masters program, what their academic and professional strengths and

weaknesses are, and what the focus of each individual student’s study needs

to be. Program directors determine what is covered in this course. Example

ideas include a learning contract (which may be revisited throughout the

program), gap analysis, and a starting CV (which can be revisited throughout

the program).

Short credit bearing courses can be as small as 2 credit points. Two credit

points of study is equivalent to 20 hours of student engagement. Short

courses have even credit point allocations and cover a myriad of things, such

as generic skills, hot topics, substantive disciplinary knowledge etc. Providing

short credit bearing courses online provides students with the opportunity to

work at a time and place of their choosing to finish each course.

Integrative assessment courses (IA) consist solely of assessment tasks that

provide students with the opportunity to integrate and apply the knowledge

and skills that they learn through the program. The IA courses are

compulsory. The Program Director and Team will determine the number of

integrative assessment courses used in each program. Each integrative

assessment course will be worth between 12 and 48 credit points. To ensure

that students demonstrate achievement of all of the program learning

outcomes, cumulatively the IAL courses must cover all of the program

learning outcomes. Given that the AQF requires at least one capstone

experience, or research based project or piece of scholarship. It is likely that

this requirement would be called an integrative assessment course.

Each masters program finishes with an Exit course which supports the

student to transition to professional practice. Program directors can determine

what is covered in this course and the credit point allocation. Example ideas

include writing: a reflective piece on what has been learnt in the program and

the influence of this learning on professional practice; responses to selection

criteria; and a CV.

5 References

Australian Qualifications Framework (2011). Retrieved from http://www.aqf.edu.au/ on November 15,

2011.

56 of 67

Appendix 1

Model 1 Requirements and their Rationale

Model 1 requirements for masters by coursework programs ensures that RMIT programs are attractive to a discerning cohort of working professionals and allows Schools to develop new or redeveloped, professionally oriented, coursework Masters Programs that are student centred. Aspect Requirement Rationale

a)

Core/Elective

Masters coursework programs provide

student choice through:

EITHER

More than 50% of the masters program

may comprise core courses but significant

student choice is provided within 50% of

their core courses. For example students

may have a choice of project topic, or

choice of assessment task type within

courses.

OR

No more than 50% of the masters4

program will comprise core courses,

where core courses are required to be

taken by all students in the program. Core

courses in this option are also expected to

include student choice within the course.

IN BOTH CASES

Where masters programs offer students

further choice of specialisation within the

program, those courses will be deemed as

giving students choice even if the courses

are not optional for students taking that

specialisation.

Students value the opportunity to choose

courses and customise their programs so that

they meet their individual needs and

aspirations.

Within some masters programs students have

the opportunity to specialise further in a

particular field through their choice of course

streams.

b) Mode Programs are offered in one or more of

three modes.

BLENDED MODE

No more than 50% of courses offered in a

traditional, weekly/fortnightly, face to face,

on campus mode. The other 50% of

courses are offered in either fully online or

intensive modes, or a combination of both.

BLENDED MODE

The blended mode provides a mix of modes

allowing for the strengths of each to be a

feature within a program. Traditional weekly or

fortnightly face to face sessions allow the

teaching to focus on learning best developed in

a face to face setting; e.g. team work, the

development of interpersonal skills, problem

solving, the exploration of misconceptions and

traditionally difficult concepts, the development

of arguments, providing feedback and cohort

building.

[The rationale for intensive and fully online

courses are found below]


57 of 67

INTENSIVE MODE

All courses in intensive mode. Intensive

mode may be organized in different ways,

for example: 4 Saturdays throughout a

semester; a week long session; two

weekend classes within a study period.

Courses that provide intensive, face to face

learning opportunities build cohort identity and

provide students with the opportunity to more

easily engage in collaborative disciplinary and

interdisciplinary work. Intensive mode also

allows students the time to assimilate and

apply their learning to their professional

practice in between sessions.

ONLINE MODE

All courses fully online. Wherever possible

fully online courses will typically comprise

‘sub components or modules’ that

students can complete in 8 – 20 hours of

study.

For those student cohorts that are not able to

attend campus meetings, fully online programs

allow students to study from distant locations

and balance study with work, family and social

commitments. Online study also simulates

working in a global or national organization,

providing students with the opportunity to

communicate and function professionally in an

online environment. The online mode also

provides students with the opportunity to

incrementally and progressively complete

modules of a course in small study periods, so

as to fit in with time poor students’ needs.

c) Curriculum

design

1) Programs are AQF compliant

- Include program level learning

outcomes as specified in AQF level 9

descriptors • Knowledge (discipline and research

principles and methods) • Skills • Application of knowledge and skills • Generic learning outcomes (in HE

known as graduate attributes defined by institution)

- Develop and assess AQF Skill

descriptors and Generic learning

outcomes, in at 50% of the program

courses

• 1 year (cognate) = min. 48cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min. 72cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min.

72cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min. 96cpts

- Provide 12 credit points on AQF

specified knowledge of research

principles and methods. This

provision may take the form of a single

course or research methods and

principles may be embedded in more

than one course to the equivalent of at

least 12 credit points.

• 1 year (cognate) = min. 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min.12cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) =

min.12cpts

Meets Australian self-accrediting regulatory

requirements (AQF).


requirements (AQF)

Employers and graduates value employability

skills such as professional communication,

team work and problem solving.


requirements (AQF)

A knowledge of research methods and

principles assists students to use and interpret

the literature. The knowledge of research

methods and principles may also allow

students to enroll in research qualifications.

58 of 67

• 2 years (non-cognate) = min.12cpts

- Incorporate research-based projects

/capstone experiences and/or pieces

of scholarship into programs in line

with AQF application of knowledge and

skill descriptors

• 1 year (cognate) = 24 cpts in final

study period • 1.5 years (cognate) = min. 36 cpts

with 24cpts in final study period plus 12cpts in end of study period 2 F/T, study period 4 P/T




requirements (AQF)

Demonstrates RMITs commitment to “…a

philosophy of education and research founded

in action and experience [with an] … approach

to education and research [that] emphasizes

learning from action and experience [RMIT

Strategic Plan 2015:3]

Facilitates opportunities for students to

integrate their knowledge, skills from across

courses within a program

Facilitates student collaboration through the

alignment of courses in the same study period

2) Include a minimum of 2 and a

maximum of 6 learning outcomes in

each 12 credit point course. Each learning

outcome must align with at least one

program learning outcome.

Enables achievable learning outcomes that can

be developed and assessed within each

course.

3) In each year of the program, courses

include opportunities for students to seek

and receive advice about their career

aspirations and how their program might

best support those aspirations.

Students highly value the opportunity to

discuss their career aspirations with staff and

seek advice on their program of study. Such

advice is valuable in each year of their

program.

4) Engage students with technologies

commonly used in their profession.

Increases the relevance of the program to

students and assists their employability upon

graduation.

5) Where students are provided the

opportunity to choose a further

specialisation within the program, a

specialisation must comprise a minimum

of 36 credit points (or more credit points if

an external registering body requires

more)

Within some masters programs students have

the opportunity to further specialise in a

particular field. To ensure the development of a

depth of knowledge, skills and application at

level 9, a specialisation will comprise a

minimum of 36 credit points. For example, a

minor thesis may constitute a specialisation.

Combined with a 12 credit point research

methods and principles course, a 24 credit

point minor thesis would comprise a 36 credit

point specialisation.

6) Include opportunities for students to

experience urban, professional and

global perspectives such that students:

- work in an interdisciplinary context

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min

24cpts

Allows learners to work with students from

other disciplines, emulating contemporary

workplaces.

Examples of interdisciplinary, collaborative

opportunities include: students doing work

59 of 67

• 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts

To mitigate timetabling difficulties with

scheduling courses that include

interdisciplinary, collaborative

teamwork, one course will be scheduled

in the final semester of the program. If

a second course in a program includes

interdisciplinary collaborative teamwork,

that course will be scheduled in

semester two for students studying full

time and the final semester of the

second year for students studying part

time in a three year program.

- have the opportunity to work in

international and/or cross cultural

groups

• 1 year (cognate) = min 12cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min

24cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24cpts

- will engage in at least 12 credit points

of Work Integrated Learning activities

that relate to their local urban

environment.

- engage with global perspectives in the

program. This may be achieved, for

example, through the use of the

international literature, program

involvement of experts from different

countries (including our own staff),

working with students from other

countries, and international

internships/study opportunities.

based projects with interdisciplinary colleagues

in their workplaces; students from different

programs working together on projects; and

students from different disciplinary

backgrounds enrolled in the same program

working collaboratively.

The experience of working in international

and/or cross cultural groups emulates

contemporary workplaces and assists students’

employability upon graduation.

Meets RMIT WIL policy. “All RMIT higher

education graduate diploma and master by

coursework awards will have one or more core

courses totaling at least 12 credit points where

WIL activities of Principle 1 above are the

predominant assessments” [RMIT WIL Policy].

Learning about global perspectives emulates

contemporary workplaces and assists students’

employability upon graduation.

d)

ASSESSMENT

1) Continuous assessment with no one

assessment task comprising more than

60% of the course assessment, with an

average of 3 assessment tasks per 12

credit points.

Provides students with the opportunity to learn

throughout the semester.

Mitigates over assessment

If an assessment task is worth a maximum of

60%, the student can fail this task and still

hope to pass the course.

2) A mix of assessment tasks in each

course from: • Traditional assessments • Authentic, workbased assessments

that reflect contemporary work places • Recognition of concurrent learning in

the workplace • Recognition of prior learning

Reduces assessment bias where some

students do better on a particular type of

assessment than other students

60 of 67

If the same type of assessment task, they

provide students with the opportunity to

improve their work.

3) One assessment task to be completed

early in each course in ‘first’ year courses.

Provides early feedback to improve confidence

or identify potential weaknesses before they

become problems for student and teachers

4) Formative feedback rich with

opportunities for students to reflect on and

act upon feedback.

While timely and constructive feedback is

necessary, it is not sufficient. To improve

student learning, we need to provide

opportunities for students to act on and learn

from, feedback they receive. For example,

students may be given feedback on drafts or

similar types of assessments so that they can

incorporate their responses to the feedback

into the next iteration.

5) Opportunities for students to use

concurrent work based evidence to fulfill

assessment requirements • 1 year (cognate) = min 12 cpts • 1.5 years (cognate)= min 24 cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate) = min 24

cpts • 2 years (non-cognate) = min 24 cpts

Enables the program to recognise and/or build

on relevant work or continuing professional

development activities that they are

concurrently undertaking in their work places

6) Opportunities to be assessed by self

and peers as well as the lecturers in a

program

Incorporating self and peer assessment tasks

helps build students’ understanding of

assessment criteria and what constitutes

different standards of work.

7) Rubrics for each assessment task that

articulate the assessment criteria and

standards of performance used. The

assessment criteria need to be aligned

with the learning outcomes and the

relevant AQF specification(s).

Provides students with clearly articulated

expectations and can be used in audits to

demonstrate compliance.

61 of 67

Appendix 2

Model 2 Requirements and their Rationale Model 2 requirements for masters by coursework programs ensures that RMIT programs are attractive to a discerning cohort of students and allows Schools to develop new or redeveloped, professionally oriented, coursework Masters Programs that are student centred. Aspect Requirement Rationale

Short credit

bearing

courses of

fewer than 12

credit points

1) Have an even number of credit points

and a minimum of 2 and a maximum

of 6 credit points where 2 credit points

is equivalent to 20 hours of student

engagement

Short credit bearing courses assists programs

to - focus on industry emerging trends and hot

topics - develop AQF skills and industry valued

employability skills. - provide continuing professional

development opportunities which may or may not be taken for credit, for people in the workplace

They allow time poor students the opportunity

to complete courses in fewer time than a full 12

credit point course requires

Even credit points increase the ease of

clustering short courses to complete 12 credit

points for program completion purposes

2) A maximum of 50% of the program can

be allocated to short credit bearing

courses • 1 year (cognate level 8) = min. 0 max

48cpts • 1.5 years (cognate level 7)= max.

72cpts • 1.5 years (non-cognate level 8) =

max. 72cpts • 2 years (non-cognate level 7) = max.

96cpts

The number of short credit bearing courses is

limited: • ss they will likely involve an extra

administrative burden on programs. • so that students don’t struggle to

integrate their knowledge and skills across the program

3) Each short credit bearing course aligns

with at least one AQF program learning

outcome

Ensures all courses contribute to the program

learning outcomes

4) At least 3 short credit bearing courses

will be available in a fully online mode

Provide opportunities for students to better

balance their work, personal and study

commitments by being able to complete a

significant proportion of their courses from a

distance

5) At least 3 fully online short credit

bearing courses will be available for

study in each summer and spring study

periods (this does not preclude them

from being available in semesters 1 and

2 as well)

Provides students with the opportunity to

progress completion of their degree throughout

the year

6) Each short credit bearing course will

include pro rata the number of

Workload and over assessment will occur if

short credit bearing courses of up to 6 credit

62 of 67

assessment tasks required by RMIT

assessment policy and College

Assessment Guidelines.

points were expected to have the same

assessment requirements as 12 credit point

courses

Entry and

exit courses

1) Each program provides at least one

course (may or may not be a short

course) that specifically assists

students to determine their individual

study needs and provide guidance in

their career aspirations

Both the literature and RMIT students say that

students need guidance to evaluate their study

and career needs and plan their course of

study.

This provision may assist to make our

programs distinctive in the sector.

2) Each program provides at least one

course (may or may not be a short

course) that specifically assists

students to reflect on their learning and

identify how their learning has or will

influence their professional practice.

Student value our support as they transition

from studying to professional practice

This provision may assist to make our

programs distinctive in the sector.

Integrative

assessment

courses

1) Each program will include a minimum of

three integrative assessment courses of

at least 12 credit points each.

Addresses difficulties students have in seeing

the connections between knowledge and skills

studied across a program

2) Each integrative assessment will have a

minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4

assessment tasks

Complies with College Assessment guidelines

3) At least one integrative assessment will

be a capstone experience or a research

based project or a piece of scholarship

(in line with the AQF requirements and

RMIT policy)

Complies with AQF requirements

4) Cumulatively, the integrative

assessment courses address all

program learning outcomes.

Ensures that students can demonstrate the

achievement of all program learning outcomes.

63 of 67

Appendix 3

Assessment tasks

Teaching staff can choose from a wide range of different types of assessment tasks to assess student learning outcomes. Some examples are: exams (including multiple choice questions); essays; debates; case studies; written memos; projects; portfolios; artefacts; and oral presentations. Many assessment websites exist. Boud’s ‘Assessment Futures’ may be of value to staff rethinking their course assessment (http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/assessment-futures/). He provides assessment examples by discipline at http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/assessment-futures/subjects/examples/business-example.html Integrative assessment tasks Generally, integrative assessment tasks are designed to help students see the connections between the knowledge, skills and graduate attributes that they study across a program. Crisp suggests that any program should have four different assessment tasks, ‘diagnostic’, ‘formative’, ‘summative’ and ‘integrative’. Their different outcomes and rewards need to be clearly explained to students. The first three tasks facilitate and test current learning whereas integrative assessment tasks “enhance future learning” (2012, p.33): Crisp’s assessment framework (Ibid.) is useful whatever type of integrative assessment you choose. There are numerous examples from many disciplines in the literature, but common integrative tasks include those listed below, with brief exemplars: Capstone projects While the AQF does not limit these with a definition, some suggested capstone project

outcomes are decision making, critical thinking, collaborative/professional relationships, oral and written communications and problem solving (Moore, Odom & Weid (2011). Synthesising and connecting are critical to these but often neglected in practice. In a leadership education context these authors used Gardner’s ’5 minds for the future’ framework to design a capstone assignment to help student develop these new ways of thinking (2008, p.3, in Moore et al., p.125) as well as achieving the decision making, critical thinking, and written communications outcomes. Dunlap (2005, p.81) recommends “involving students in authentic and real problem-solving activities throughout their academic programs” rather than leaving it to the end. She used a problem based learning (PBL) based approach with guided reflective journals to help computing science students integrate knowledge and experience and found significantly increased perceived ‘self efficacy’, based on a pre and post administered Self Efficacy Scale. Portfolios Portfolios are “a purposeful compilation and reflection of one’s work, efforts and progress” (Milman, 2005, in Bhattacharya & Hartnett, 2007, TIG19). Electronic portfolios or e-Portfolios add “a mechanism for documenting growth and achievement of professional knowledge and skills” (ibid.). Some software systems are regarded as more effective than others (Fielke & Quinn, 2009). Portfolios can be used as a course to integrate learning from other program courses, or as a capstone requirement. For example, an e-portfolio is used as part of one Engineering

…by providing activities that define and track strategies that students use to assess their own learning abilities and problem solving capabilities, the quality and standards of student responses and how students might adapt their learning

64 of 67

Internship course in which students’ full-time work in industry is assessed for academic credit. Two of the four assessment items involved the e-Portfolio, the Internship e-Portfolio and the Internship Report. Student outcomes are “Apply knowledge of engineering in similar and/or new situations; Assess when new knowledge is required and demonstrate competency in obtaining and applying this knowledge; Integrate existing and new technical knowledge for industrial application; Demonstrate relevant Stage 2 Engineers Australia technical competencies; Discuss the concept of lifelong learning through critical reflection of work experiences and processes” (Kane, Blackmore & Compston, 2011). Research-based projects A project should help a student “to become more accomplished at systematically documenting (and reviewing what can be learnt from) observations, experiences, reflections and insights when engaged in an ongoing task or activity” (Sharp, 2007). Projects may form an alternative to a piece of scholarship such as a dissertation, but still involve independent research and inquiry. They may be “wider in their:

• conception (e.g. collaborative projects as part of a research group; consultancy projects);

• function (e.g. synthesising capstone projects; preparatory projects for transition into a profession);

• form (e.g. student group projects); • location (e.g. employer and community based projects); and/or • how they are disseminated (e.g. through exhibitions, undergraduate research

conferences and other forms of public engagement)” (Healey). Minor thesis A minor thesis is an ideal assessment task for some students to demonstrate that they can integrate concepts, ideas and actions in a relevant area. Sanzon, Myran & Clayton (2011) argue “for research efforts that are fully integrated into practice, through university scholars who can “integrate research and practice into purposeful efforts that produce useable knowledge”. For example, a nursing student could prepare a report on a practical problem but would need to base this in a theoretical framework, as well as demonstrate advanced information retrieval and report writing skills. Reflection “Critical reflection and integration processes differentiate work-integrated learning from work experience programs” (Orrell, 2011, p.7). Reflection involves critiquing assumptions to determine whether any belief, often acquired through cultural assimilation in childhood, remains functional for us as adults. We do this by critically examining its origins, nature and consequences, often through problem solving (Mezirow, 1994). Benefits include encouraging metacognition, critical thinking, can be enhanced by collaboration, making sense of events, encouraging the examination and evaluation of assumptions and beliefs, the potential to enhance creativity and improving cognitive ability (Bhattacharya & Hartnett,2007, T1G-20). These authors offer a rubric to guide teachers and students as to the elements of quality reflection and to help assess it. Effective reflection requires scaffolding and support. Critical reflection requires encouraging students to develop on a continuum from ‘thinking critically to understanding themselves critically to ‘acting critically (Barnett, 1997, p.4). Innovative approaches New technology such as Virtual Realities (VR) simulations can address a lack of funding or work placement opportunities. In one game and problem-based virtual engineering environment, “successful task completion was rewarded with knowledge acquisition, and users confronted typical plant operation issues and deposited concepts tools into a knowledge bank linked to a user-generated concept map” (Cameron, in Orrell, 2011, p 39). Using new

65 of 67

technologies for individual and collaborative learning is pedagogically complex (Dillenbourg & Jarman, 2007). Other examples replace written reports and/or individual class presentations with poster presentations, so students could review their internship and reflect on their learning experiences and development of capabilities (McNamara, Larkin & Beatson, 2010). Multidisciplinary assessment criteria are included. Alverno College (USA) aligns curricula throughout its programs, towards a “goal of graduating learners who can integrate and apply, adapt and transfer what they have learned to settings these learners have not yet fully experienced or even imagined (Mentkowski & Sharkey, 2011,p.100). References

Arnold, T. (2010). Integrative Learning and the Individualized Prior Learning Assessment

Narrative. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(1), 47-49. Crisp, G. (2012). Integrative assessment: reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1).

Batson, T. (2010). Review of Portfolios in Higher Education: A Flowering of Inquiry and Inventiveness in the Trenches. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2010/12/01/Review-of-Portfolios-in-Higher-Education.aspx?Page=3

Bhattacharya, M., & Hartnett, M. (2007). E-portfolio assessment in higher education. Paper presented at the 2007 37th annual frontiers in education conference - global engineering: knowledge without borders, opportunities without passports.

Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing Integrative Scripts. In Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (6 ed., pp. 275-301). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Franz, J. (2007). Work Integrated Learning for Design: A Scholarship of Integration. Retrieved 22 May, 2012, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/25953/1/Work_Integrated_Learning_for_Design_-_A_Scholarship_of_Integration.pdf

Kane, L., Blackmore, K., & Compston, P. (2011). ePortfolios: a novel way to assess engineering interns. Retrieved 18 May, 2012, from cecs.anu.edu.au/professionaldevelopment/publicationsconf2010

Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65-85.

Fielke, J., & Quinn, D. (2009). Supporting self-assessment using e-portfolios. Paper presented at the Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference., Adelaide 6-9 Dec.

Healey, M. insight.glos.ac.uk/tli/activities/ntf/.../Mick%20Healey%20Presentation.ppt Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating Change in Undergraduate

STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of the Literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984.

Huber, M. T., Hutchings, P., Gale, R., Miller, R., & Breen, M. (2007). Leading Initiatives for Integrative Learning. Liberal Education, 92(2), 46-51.

McNamara, J., Larkin, I. K., & Beatson, A. (2010). Using poster presentations as assessment of work integrated learning. Retrieved 23 May, 2012, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38093/1/c38093.pdf

Mentkowski, M., & Sharkey, S. (2011). How We know it when we see it: Conceptualizing and assessing integrative and applied learning-in-use. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149), 93-107.

Mezirow, J. a. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, R. (2005). Integrative Learning and Assessment. Peer Review, 7(4), 11.

66 of 67

Moore, L. L., Odom, S. F., & Weid, L. M. (2011). Leadership for Dummies: A Capstone Project for Leadership Students. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Resources/Documents/jole/2011_winter/Moore_Odom_Wied_2011.pdf

Orrell, J. (2011). Good Practice Report: Work-integrated learning. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Sanzo, K., Myran, S. and Clayton, J. (2011). "Building bridges between knowledge and practice: A university-school district leadership preparation program partnership", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 Iss: 3, pp.292 - 312

Sharp, N. (2007). Integrative Assessment: Blending assignments and assessments for high-quality learning Guide no 3. Retrieved 23 May, 2012, from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/blending-assignments-and-assessments.pdf

Appendix 4

Example curriculum structure for different volumes of learning

Each program is shown in terms of the time taken for a part time student to complete the program, i.e. 1, 1.5 or 2 years. (AQF, 2011:58). Courses may be allocated 12 or multiples of 12 credit points. Table 1. Student entering with cognate level 8 background – 96 credit point masters coursework program (in this example each course is of 12 credit points)

Year 1 Year 2

Sem. 1 Course 1 Course 5

Course 2 Course 6

Sem. 2 Course 3 Course 7

Course 4 Course 8

Table 2. Student entering with cognate level 7 background – 144 credit point masters coursework program (in this example each course is of 12 credit points)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Sem. 1 Course 1 Course 5 Course 9

Course 2 Course 6 Course 10



Table 3. Student entering with noncognate level 8 background – 144 credit point masters coursework program (in this example each course is of 12 credit points)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3





Table 4. Student entering with noncognate level 7 background – 192 credit point masters coursework program (in this example each course is of 12 credit points)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Sem. 1 Course 1 Course 5 Course 9 Course 13

Course 2 Course 6 Course 10 Course 14

Sem. 2 Course 3 Course 7 Course11 Course 15

Course 4 Course 8 Course 12 Course 16