Tasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching (TILT)
ELT501
Foundations of
University
Learning and Teaching
Semester 1
2013
Unit Outline
Dr Natalie Brown
Dr Sharon Lierse
CRICOS Provider Code: 00586B
Contact Details
Unit Coordinator/Lecturer
Dr Natalie Brown
Campus
E-mail
Hobart
Phone
03 6226 1756 and 0419 120 334
Contact Times
Email with 48 hour turnaround during business
hours
Unit Lecturer
Campus
Dr Sharon Lierse
Hobart
E-mail
Sharon.Lierse@utas.edu.au
Phone
03 6226 1901
Contact Times
Email with 48 hour turnaround during business
hours
Unit Administration
Ms Emily Marshall, Graduate Certificate
Administration
Campus:
Launceston
E-mail:
Emily.Marshall@utas.edu.au
Phone:
03 6324 3740
Contact Times:
Business hours
Natalie.Brown@utas.edu.au
© The University of Tasmania 2013
Contents
Unit Description
Intended Learning Outcomes
Generic Graduate Attributes
Alterations to this Unit as a Result of Student Feedback
Prior Knowledge and Skills
Teaching and learning strategies
Learning Resources
For MyLO
Teaching Arrangements
Learning Expectations
Specific Attendance and Performance Requirements
Recommended Readings
Assessment
Assessment Task 1
Assessment Task 2
Assessment Task 3
How Your Final Result is Determined
Submission of Assignments
Review of Results and Appeals
Academic Referencing
Academic Misconduct
Workplace Health and Safety
Further Information and Assistance
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
7
7
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
Unit Description
ELT501
Foundations of University Learning and Teaching
This unit is designed to provide information and a collegial environment to support
you in developing a rich and integrated understanding of university learning and
teaching issues, with reference to the UTAS context.
You will explore the theories, principles and practice of university learning and
teaching. There is an emphasis on discussing and applying constructive alignment,
strategies to promote deep learning and integrating technology into the learning and
teaching environment.
This is the foundation unit in the Graduate Certificate of University Learning and
Teaching, and consequently introduces a range of topics that will be developed
further in other units. It also acts as a primer for new UTAS staff.
Staff: Dr Natalie Brown, Dr Sharon Lierse, Dr Sharon Thomas, Dr Karin Mathison,
Mr Gerry Kregor, Ms Kristin Warr, Dr Yoshi Budd, Ms Jo Osborne, Ms Nell Rundle,
Mr Ben Cleland and Dr Doug Colbeck.
Unit weight: 12.5%
Teaching pattern: Block teaching (i.e. face-to-face; 4 days + 1 day), MyLO
supported.
Required resource:
Biggs, J and Tang C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed).
Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
or
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.).
Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education
and Open University Press.
Courses: [E5T]
2
Intended Learning Outcomes
Foundations of University Learning and Teaching fulfils two roles: it is the foundation
unit in the Graduate Certificate of University Learning and Teaching, and it also acts
as a primer for new UTAS staff.
The unit is designed to provide information and a collegial environment to support
you in developing a rich and integrated understanding of university learning and
teaching issues, as described in the following intended learning outcomes.
1. Apply theoretical and practical knowledge of best practice in student-centred
teaching in higher education, to plan and design curricula.
2. Analyse and evaluate the role of assessment in learning and teaching, and
build a repertoire of formative and summative assessment tasks.
3. Present an argument for change that improves teaching and learning within
your professional context.
Generic Graduate Attributes
The University has defined a set of generic graduate attributes (GGAs) that can be
expected of all graduates. By undertaking this unit you should make progress in
attaining the following attributes.
Knowledge will be developed by learning and applying new skills and
understandings to your particular teaching and learning contexts. This will be
assessed through the application of knowledge in the development of practical
teaching resources, the ability to reflect and evaluate on the application of these
resources within learning environments and the ability to situate this work within the
literature.
Communication skills will be developed by teaching and modelling the oral, written
and visual communication skills required in diverse learning contexts. Written skills
will be assessed.
Problem-solving skills will be developed by demonstrating, modelling and critiquing
critical issues in teaching and learning. Problem solving skills will be assessed
through the ability to find solutions to problems in individual workplace learning and
teaching contexts.
Social responsibility will be developed through the acknowledgement of social and
ethical implications of actions, appreciation of the impact of social change and a
practical understanding of inclusive practice principles. Through assessment tasks
participants will be expected to demonstrate ethical understanding and professional
teaching and assessment practices and conform to the University’s codes of conduct,
policies and rules.
3
Alterations to this Unit as a Result of Student Feedback
As a result of student feedback - through formal Student Evaluation of Teaching and
Learning (i.e. SETL) surveys, informal end-of-class surveys and discussions with
students – the intended learning outcomes have been refined. In particular, the third
intended learning outcome has been rewritten to better reflect a major purpose of this
unit.
The assessment structure has also been refined. In particular, a group presentation
assignment has been replaced by a discussion paper focusing on writing intended
learning outcomes (i.e. ILOs) and ensuring constructive alignment. The final
assignment has also been modified from a critique of an existing unit to the
development of an outline for a unit that you would like to develop. This change in the
final assignment is designed to better integrate with the experiences, and the
professional positions, of ELT501 students. Weightings for assessment criteria have
been added to provide guidance about key criteria to address.
The rubrics for the assessment tasks are now included in the unit outline.
In order to ensure that you have exposure to technologies that are increasingly part
of UTAS there is an increased focus on providing opportunities for using
environments such as Web Conferencing. The assignment due dates have also been
shifted from Fridays to Mondays, in response to student requests.
Prior Knowledge and Skills
In most cases, you need to have completed a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent. You
also need to be committed to self improvement in your teaching and other
educational activities, and be willing to engage colleagues in this process. You will
need to have access to a Unit Outline, preferably for a unit in which you teach. If you
are not teaching into a unit, you may need to request to use an outline written by a
colleague.
Teaching and learning strategies
ELT 501 is taught predominantly in face-to-face mode. As such, attendance at
sessions is very important. An important aspect of the face-to-face classes is to give
you the opportunity to meet, and work with, colleagues from different Schools and
Faculties.
There are five face-to-face days (four consecutive days and one follow-up day) with
classes running from 10am until 4pm on those days. A schedule of sessions for the
first four days will be given out on the first day of the course. The follow up day will be
designed to respond to the needs and requests of the class.
In addition to the face-to-face teaching, the course will be supported through a MyLO
site. The inclusion of minimal interaction with MyLO is designed to assist you to
communicate effectively with the teaching team and each other, and to allow you to
gain some hands-on experience with the UTAS Learning Management System.
4
Learning Resources
The textbook is: Biggs, J and Tang C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at
University (4th ed). Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
or
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.).
Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education
and Open University Press.
The face-to-face days will be supported through handouts and resources accessed
through MyLO.
As a MyLO supported unit, you will be required to have interactions through MyLO.
As a minimum requirement you will need to:
1. Access the MyLO site and introduce yourself to the ELT501 class
2. Maintain a regular surveillance of the MyLO site to pick up any News items
3. Submit your assessment tasks through the MyLO drop box
4. Utilise resource posted on MyLO
For MyLO
To access MyLO from your own computer you will need the appropriate software,
and hardware to run that software. Please see UConnect at
http://uconnect.utas.edu.au/ for information about computer software you will need.
If you are using your UTAS computer, assistance can be gained through the 1818
number.
Teaching Arrangements

Hobart: Tuesday 5th February, Wednesday 6th February, Thursday 7th
February and Friday 8th February with a follow up day on Thursday 28th March
(first day of the Easter break).

Launceston: Tuesday 12th February, Wednesday 13th February, Thursday
14th February and Friday 15th February with a follow up day on Wednesday 3rd
April (within the Easter break).
5
Unit Schedule
Week
beginning
Topic/Activity
Further Information
4th February
Hobart: Tuesday 5th – Friday 8th February
Face-to-face classes for
Hobart Cohort
11th February
Launceston: Tuesday 12th – Friday 15th February
Face-to-face classes for
Launceston Cohort
18th February
25th February
Access MyLo site for News and/or
announcements
4 th March
11th March
Access MyLo site for News and/or
announcements
18th March
Assignment 1 due Monday 25th March
Submit via MyLO drop box
25th March
Follow up day - Hobart
Hobart: Thursday 28th March
1st April
Launceston: Wednesday 3rd April
Follow up day –
Launceston
8th April
15th April
Access MyLo site for News and/or
announcements
22nd April
29th April
Access MyLo site for News and/or
announcements
6th May
13th May
Assignment 2 due Monday 13th May
Submit via MyLO drop box
20th May
27th May
Access MyLo site for News and/or
announcements
3rd June
10th June
Assessment Task 3 due: Monday 10th June
6
Submit via MyLO drop box
Learning Expectations
The University is committed to high standards of professional conduct in all activities,
and holds its commitment and responsibilities to its students as being of paramount
importance. Likewise, it holds expectations about the responsibilities students have
as they pursue their studies within the special environment the University offers.
The University’s Code of Conduct for Teaching and Learning states:
Students are expected to participate actively and positively in the
teaching/learning environment. They must attend classes when and
as required, strive to maintain steady progress within the subject or
unit framework, comply with workload expectations, and submit
required work on time.
Specific Attendance and Performance Requirements
Students must attend at least 80% of all face-to-face teaching sessions, and submit
all assessment tasks.
Recommended Readings
It is important that you read journal articles throughout the semester. This is
particularly important in relation to assignments 1 and 2. In the first block of face-toface days you will be provided with advice about which journals to focus on. You will
also be given a comprehensive data base of learning and teaching articles.
A summary list of journals that may be of interest is provided below. These are all
accessible from UTAS e-journals, unless otherwise indicated.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Higher Education
Higher Education Research and Development
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Journal of Further and Higher Education
The Journal of Higher Education
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) - www.iupui.edu/~josotl/
Studies in Higher Education
Teaching in Higher Education
Journals with a Technology in Education Focus
ALT-J : Association for Learning Technology Journal
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
British Journal of Educational Technology
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Journal of Interactive Online Learning
Journal of Learning Design
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching
Technology, Pedagogy and Education
The Internet and Higher Education
7
Assessment
Assessment Schedule
Assessment Task
Date Due
Percent
Weighting
Links to Learning
Outcomes
Revisiting Intended
Learning
Outcomes
Focus on
Assessment
Writing a Unit
Outline
Monday 25th March
20%
1 and 3
Monday 13th May
30%
1, 2 and 3
Monday 10th June
50%
1, 2 and 3
Assessment Task 1
Revisiting Intended Learning Outcomes (20%)
Task
Description
This assessment is to be completed using a unit outline for an
existing UTAS unit, with the preference being a unit that you have
some responsibility for teaching.
A critique of the existing intended learning outcomes is required. This
involves commenting on the appropriateness of the outcomes and
the extent to which they are consistent with UTAS guidelines and
best practice as articulated in the teaching and learning literature.
The outcomes are then modified to better reflect the unit’s intentions
and the guidelines. If you believe no modification is required a strong
defence of that position is required.
Task Length
1500 words
Links to
Learning
Outcomes
1 and 3
Assessment
Criteria
The quality of the critique of the existing intended learning outcomes.
This includes evidence of you reflecting on: teaching experiences,
student feedback, alignment with assessment tasks and the aim of
the unit. [weighting 30%]
The extent to which the critique is supported by reference to UTAS
guidelines and the teaching and learning literature. [weighting 30%]
The extent to which modified intended learning outcomes are
consistent with UTAS guidelines and the teaching and learning
literature. [weighting 30%]
The extent to which the assignment is presented in an ‘academic
essay/report’ style, with citations and referencing in accordance with
8
the American Psychological Association (APA) style. [weighting 10%]
Date Due
Monday 25th March
Assessment Task 2
Focus on Assessment (30%)
Task
Description
The purpose of this task is to identify one or two aspects within the
existing assessment agenda of a unit that would benefit from
change, and to provide suggestions for improvement in order to
facilitate more consistent and higher quality student learning
outcomes. You also need to consider how the change might be
received by stakeholders and why, and how you could minimise
obstacles or best facilitate change.
The preference is for the unit to be one that you have some
responsibility for teaching and for it to be the same unit considered in
Assessment Task 1.
You are expected to explain and justify your plans and suggestions
with reference to appropriate University policies, procedures and
guidelines, and published scholarly discussions related to
assessment of learning in higher education contexts.
Task Length 1500 words
Links to
Learning
Outcomes
1, 2 and 3
Assessment Identification and justification for change to one or two major aspects
Criteria
of the unit assessment. [weighting 20%]
Proposed specific changes to the identified aspects. [weighting 20%]
Discussion of how the changes will be received by stakeholders.
[weighting 20%]
Use of appropriate university policies, procedures and guidelines,
and teaching and learning literature. [weighting 20%]
The extent to which the assignment is presented in an ‘academic
essay/report’ style, with citations and referencing in accordance with
the American Psychological Association (APA) style. [weighting 20%]
Sources
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at
university (4th ed.). Buckingham: Open University
9
Press/McGraw-Hill or 3rd edition – see notes below.
University of Tasmania. (2006). Code of conduct for teaching and
learning. Retrieved from www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/policy
University of Tasmania. (2009). Assessment policy TLP 2.1.
Retrieved from www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy
University of Tasmania. (2009). Rule No 2 – Academic assessment
(Amended). Retrieved from
http://www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/academicgovernance/academic-senate/academic-senate-rules
University of Tasmania. (2011). Guidelines for good assessment
practice. Retrieved from www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/158674/GA
G_v16_webversion.pdf
University of Tasmania. (2012, February 12) Assessment web site.
Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/assessment
University of Tasmania. (2012, April 23). Teaching and learning
home page. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au
James, R., McInnis, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). Core principles of
effective assessment. Retrieved from
www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/05/index.html
(There are a number of links in the online version of this
resource that will allow you to pursue particular interests and
topics in assessment).
You should also review Chapters 10, 11 and 12 of your text:
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Note that if you are using the 3rd edition,
these are chapters 9, 10 and 11.
Learning and teaching journals, including discipline-specific journals.
Date Due
Monday 13th May
Assessment Task 3
Writing a Unit Outline (50%)
Task
Description
You are expected to submit a unit outline for a unit that is not offered
at UTAS. Rather, the outline is to be written for a unit that you
believe would be a valuable addition to an existing course (also
known as a programme).
In addition to the unit outline you are to submit a completed ‘new unit
form’ and a 500 word description of why you believe the unit should
be raised.
Note: The unit outline template you use must the one provided by the
School/Faculty that the proposed unit would be housed in. If no such
template exists use the default UTAS one, available at:
www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines
10
Task Length
3000 words (not including words already present in the unit outline
template and in the new unit form template)
Links to
Learning
Outcomes
1, 2 and 3
Assessment
Criteria
Extent to which knowledge of institutional unit outline requirements
and guidelines is demonstrated. [weighting 35%]
Extent to which knowledge of the theories and principles of teaching
and learning is demonstrated through the construction of a quality
unit outline. [weighting 35%]
The strength of the succinct justification for why the unit should be
raised, with reference to the current UTAS environment and higher
education trends. [weighting 20%]
The degree to which the new unit form complies with UTAS
guidelines, contains a unit description that accurately describes the
unit’s aim, markets the unit, and is consistent with the unit outline.
[weighting 10%]
Date Due
Monday 10th June
(Note: Due to the timing of the examiners’ meeting, extensions for this task
will only be granted under exceptional/unforseen circumstances.)
How Your Final Result is Determined
Your final result is determined by summing the marks obtained for all assessment
tasks. It is the practice of the Faculty of Education that moderation of marks may
occur. It is also the practice of the Faculty that individual pieces of assessment be
graded according to the University’s grading system, that is, percentages/marks for
individual pieces of assessment are not released.
Submission of Assignments
Completed assessment tasks must be submitted via the MyLO drop box before
midnight on the due date.
A hard copy of the assignment including appendices and non electronic attachments,
can be delivered or mailed to the following address before midnight on the due date
or the day after.
Dr Sharon Lierse, TILT, The University of Tasmania, Private Bag 133, Hobart
7001
Due to occasional delays in mail between campuses and departments, the date and
time the email was sent will be deemed to be the date and time the assignment was
received.
11
Requests for Extensions
All requests for extensions should be submitted IN WRITING to Dr Sharon Lierse.
(Sharon.Lierse@utas.edu.au) WELL BEFORE the due date of the assignment. This
can be either a letter sent to the TILT office or an email. Phone messages and notes
placed under Dr Sharon Lierse’s door will not be accepted. Generally, foreseeable
work commitments will not be grounds for an extension.
A request for an extension does not guarantee that the request will be granted.
Penalties
Students may submit assignments before the due date (via the means specified by
the unit coordinator). A penalty will be applied for submission after the due date
unless a formal extension has been granted, in writing. As copies of assignments are
to be submitted electronically, submission on weekends is possible. Weekend days,
therefore, will attract the same penalties as weekdays.
The following late penalties apply.
 Ten-percent (10%) of the maximum mark available for the assignment for
each day late (including weekend days and public holidays) up until five days
late.
 No acceptance of any assignment submitted more than five days after the
due date (with a zero grade awarded for the item).
Word limits have been set for every paper-based assessment task. Submissions that
exceed, or are below the word limit by more than 10% may incur a penalty of 10% of
the awarded mark for each 10% over or under the word limit. The word limit excludes
references.
Review of Results and Appeals
Appeals should go to the coordinator - Dr Natalie Brown- in the first instance. If
unresolved, appeals are referred to the Course Coordinator – Dr Sharon Thomas –
and then, if necessary, to the Faculty Executive (Education).
Academic Referencing
In your written work you will need to support your ideas by referring to scholarly
literature, works of art and/or inventions. It is important that you understand how to
correctly refer to the work of others, including colleagues and students, and maintain
academic integrity.
Failure to appropriately acknowledge the ideas of others constitutes academic
dishonesty (plagiarism), a matter considered by the University of Tasmania as a
serious offence.
All students are to adopt the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing
style as this style is the one most commonly adopted in SoTL journals.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the
American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Web site: owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10
12
Please read the following statement on academic misconduct. Should you require
clarification please see a unit coordinator or lecturer.
Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct includes cheating, plagiarism, allowing another student to
copy work for an assignment or an examination and any other conduct by which a
student:
(a) seeks to gain, for themselves or for any other person, any academic
advantage or advancement to which they or that other person are not
entitled; or
(b) improperly disadvantages any other student.
Students engaging in any form of academic misconduct may be dealt with under the
Ordinance of Student Discipline, and this can include imposition of penalties that
range from a deduction/cancellation of marks to exclusion from a unit or the
University. Details of penalties that can be imposed are available in Ordinance 9:
Student
Discipline
–
Part
3
Academic
Misconduct,
see
http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/23991/ord91.pdf .
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a form of cheating. It is taking and using someone else's thoughts,
writings or inventions and representing them as your own; for example, using an
author's words without putting them in quotation marks and citing the source, using
an author's ideas without proper acknowledgment and citation, copying another
student's work. If you have any doubts about how to refer to the work of others in
your assignments, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing
guidelines, and the academic integrity resources on the web at
www.academicintegrity.utas.edu.au
The intentional copying of someone else’s work as one’s own is a serious offence
punishable by penalties that may range from a fine or deduction/cancellation of
marks and, in the most serious of cases, to exclusion from a unit, a course or the
University.
The University and any persons authorised by the University may submit
your assessable works to a plagiarism checking service, to obtain a
report on possible instances of plagiarism. Assessable works may also
be included in a reference database. It is a condition of this arrangement
that the original author’s permission is required before a work within the
database can be viewed.
For further information on this statement and general referencing guidelines, see
www.students.utas.edu.au/plagiarism or follow the link under ‘Policy, Procedures and
Feedback’ on the Current Students homepage.
13
Workplace Health and Safety
The University is committed to providing a safe and secure teaching and learning
environment. In addition to specific requirements of this unit you should refer to the
University’s policy at: www.human-resources.utas.edu.au/health-and-safety.
Further Information and Assistance
If you are experiencing difficulties with your studies or assignments, have personal or
life planning issues, disability or illness which may affect your course of study, you
are advised to raise these with your teacher in the first instance.
Generally, foreseeable work commitments will not be grounds for an extension. If
you anticipate that work commitments, such as teaching offshore, may impact on
your ability to satisfy the requirements of the course, you are advised to notify the
unit coordinator and negotiate alternative arrangements.
There is a range of University-wide support services available to you including
Teaching & Learning (TILT), Student Centre (Support) and International Services.
Please refer to the Current Students homepage at: www.utas.edu.au/students
Should you require assistance in accessing the Library visit their web site for more
information at www.utas.edu.au/library.
14
ELT501 Assessment Task 1, Semester 1, 2013: Revisiting Intended Learning Outcomes
Criteria
The quality of the
critique of the existing
intended learning
outcomes. This includes
evidence of you
reflecting on: teaching
experiences, student
feedback, alignment
with assessment tasks
and the aim of the unit.
weighting 30%
High Distinction (HD)
Distinction (DN)
Credit (CR)
Pass (PP)
Fail (NN)
The existing unit intended learning outcomes (ILOs)
are critiqued (i.e. parsed) with detailed reference to all
of the following six points:
The existing unit ILOs are
critiqued (i.e. parsed) with
detailed reference to most of
the six points mentioned in
the HD category for this
criterion.
Whilst most of the six points
mentioned in the HD
category for this criterion are
considered, some of the
discussion is at a surface
level and relationships
between the critique and the
evidence being cited are at
times not clear, tenuous, or
both.
Only a few of the six
points mentioned in
the HD criterion are
considered in
sufficient detail.
There is a lack of
evidence that
existing ILOs have
been critiqued at a
considered (i.e.
deep) level.
The critique integrates good
consideration of ELT501
face-to-face session
handouts, UTAS
publications and Biggs and
Tang (2011).
Only a few of the
five points
mentioned in the HD
criterion are
considered in
sufficient detail.
However, there is insufficient
integration of the general
and discipline-related
teaching and learning
literature.
There is minimal
evidence of
consideration of the
general and
discipline-related
teaching and
learning literature.
- the extent to which they describe the syllabus that is
taught;
- the extent to which they describe the syllabus that is
summarised in the Course and Unit Handbook
‘description’ section (that could be different to the
syllabus actually taught);
There is minimal
evidence that the
principles of
constructive
alignment have
informed the
critique.
- your teaching experiences and reflections;
- your perspective as a discipline expert;
- student feedback, anecdotal and through planned
evaluations, such as SETLs; and
- the principles of constructive alignment, including
alignment between assessment tasks and ILOs.
The extent to which the
critique is supported by
reference to UTAS
guidelines and the
teaching and learning
literature.
weighting 30%
The critique of existing ILOs is consistent with, and
extensively refers to, all of the following five points:
- discussions and handouts distributed during the
ELT501 face-to-face days;
- the UTAS publication: Guidelines for Good
Assessment Practice;
The critique of existing ILOs
is consistent with, and refers
extensively to, most of the
five points mentioned in the
HD category for this
criterion.
- relevant parts of Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011).
Teaching for quality learning at university.
Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.(or
earlier editions of the book);
- general teaching and learning literature; and
- literature specifically located in your discipline that
addresses teaching and learning issues.
1
There is only
surface level
consideration given
to the five points
mentioned in the HD
category for this
criterion.
The extent to which
modified intended
learning outcomes are
consistent with UTAS
guidelines and the
teaching and learning
literature.
weighting 30%
A list of modified ILOs are provided.
The rationale underlying each modified ILO is
explained with extensive reference to the following four
points:
- the current unit description or a recommended
modified unit description;
- the principles of constructive alignment, including
alignment between assessment tasks and ILOs;
A list of modified ILOs are
provided.
A list of modified ILOs are
provided.
A list of modified
ILOs are provided.
A list of modified
ILOs are provided.
The rationale underlying
each modified ILO is
explained with extensive
reference to most of the four
points mentioned in the HD
category for this criterion.
Whilst most of the four
points mentioned in the HD
category for this criterion are
considered, some of the
discussion is at a surface
level and relationships
between the modified ILOs
and the UTAS guidelines
and teaching and learning
literature is at times not
clear, tenuous, or both.
Only a few of the
four points
mentioned in the HD
criterion are
considered in
sufficient detail with
respect to modified
ILOs.
There is a lack of
evidence that
modified ILOs are
consistent with
UTAS guidelines
and the literature.
The paper is written in a
flowing manner. This is
evident from a structure that
includes an introduction,
body and conclusion. If
headings are used they
enhance the flow.
The paper is written in a
flowing manner. This is
evident from a structure that
includes an introduction,
body and conclusion. If
headings are used they
enhance the flow.
The paper lacks a
consistent flow (i.e.
story line). At times
paragraphs appear
unrelated to those
surrounding them.
The paper lacks flow
and hence is
challenging to read
and make sense of.
The reader is provided with
sufficient information to
understand the context of
the unit at UTAS and the
role(s) that the writer plays
in the delivery of the unit.
In most cases UTAS
publications and other cited
literature are well integrated
into the paper.
- UTAS guidelines; and
- the general and discipline-related teaching and
learning literature.
The extent to which the
assignment is presented
in an ‘academic
essay/report’ style, with
citations and
referencing in
accordance with the
American Psychological
Association (APA) style.
weighting 10%
The paper is written in a flowing manner, rather than a
stop-start-stop style. This is evident from a structure
that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If
headings are used they enhance the flow.
The reader is provided with sufficient information to
understand the context of the unit at UTAS and the
role(s) that the writer plays in the delivery of the unit.
The UTAS publications and other cited literature are
well integrated into the paper, such that it flows.
Citations and the reference list are fully compliant with
the APA style as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site
listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline.
The UTAS publications and
other cited literature are well
integrated into the paper,
such that the paper flows.
Citations and the reference
list are mostly compliant with
the APA style as articulated
on the ‘OWL’ web site listed
in the ELT501 Unit Outline.
2
Whilst the style of the
citations and the reference
list are based on the APA
style, as articulated on the
‘OWL’ web site listed in the
ELT501 Unit Outline, there
are many deviations.
UTAS publications
and other cited
literature included in
the paper could be
better integrated.
Whilst the style of
the citations and the
reference list are
based on the APA
style, as articulated
on the ‘OWL’ web
site listed in the
ELT501 Unit
Outline, there are
too many deviations.
Significant work is
required to make the
citations and
reference list
consistent with the
APA style, as
articulated on the
‘OWL’ web site listed
in the ELT501 Unit
Outline, there are
too many deviations.
ELT501 Assessment Task 2, Semester 1, 2013: Focus on Assessment
Criterion
Identification and
justification for
change to one or
two major aspects
of the unit
assessment.
weighting 20%
Proposed specific
changes to the
identified aspects.
weighting 20%
High Distinction (HD)
At most two assessment tasks
are identified. These
components are of a specific
and focused nature.
Distinction (DN)
At most two assessment tasks
are identified. These
components are of a specific
and focused nature.
Credit (CR)
At most two assessment
aspects are identified. However,
the aspects are macro in nature
rather than being specific.
Evidence of critical reflection is
provided through a succinct
explanation of why the
components need to be
changed. This explanation
includes a description of
evidence supporting the need
for change.
It is clearly evident how the
proposed changes relate to the
aspects identified as needing
improvement or replacement.
Evidence of critical reflection is
provided through an
explanation of why the
components need to be
changed.
Evidence of critical reflection is
provided through an
explanation of why the
components need to be
changed.
It is clearly evident how the
proposed changes relate to the
aspects identified as needing
improvement or replacement.
It is evident how the proposed
changes relate to the aspects
identified as needing
improvement or replacement.
It is evident how the proposed
changes relate to the aspects
identified as needing
improvement or replacement.
The details of the changes are
specific and focused.
The details of the changes are
specific and focused.
The majority of the details of the
changes are specific and
focused.
Some of the details of the
changes are specific and
focused.
It is clearly evident that
consideration has been given to
how the changes align with the
current or revised learning
outcomes (from assignment 1).
It is evident that consideration
has been given to how the
changes align with the current
or revised learning outcomes
(from assignment 1).
It is not clear how the changes
align with the current or revised
learning outcomes (from
assignment 1).
It is not clear how the changes
align with the current or revised
learning outcomes (from
assignment 1).
The changes are realistic in
terms of student and staff
workloads.
The changes are mostly
realistic in terms of student and
staff workloads.
The changes are realistic in
terms of student workload, or
staff workload, but not both.
The changes are not realistic in
terms of student workload and
staff workload.
3
Pass (PP)
Identification of assessment
aspects is unfocused and
unclear.
There is some evidence of
critical reflection through a
general explanation of why the
components need to be
changed.
Fail (NN)
There is minimal evidence of
considered thought about
changing or refining the
assessment in a unit.
Any consideration is too broad
to enable aspects to be
identified.
There is minimal evidence of
considered thought about
proposed specific changes and
how these relate to aspects of
assessment that can be
improved.
Criterion
Discussion of how
the changes will be
received by
stakeholders.
weighting 20%
Credit (CR)
Pass (PP)
Fail (NN)
There is a description of how the
proposed changes will be received
by stakeholders, including but not
limited to: teaching staff, unit
coordinators and students.
High Distinction (HD)
There is a description of how the
proposed changes will be received
by stakeholders, including but not
limited to: teaching staff, unit
coordinators and students.
There is some description of how
the proposed changes will be
received by stakeholders. However,
not all relevant stakeholder groups
are considered.
Whilst there is a description of how
the proposed changes will be
received by some stakeholders, the
description lacks depth.
There is minimal consideration of
how the changes will be received by
stakeholders.
For each stakeholder group: If there
are potential challenges identified,
these are explained and realistic
strategies for minimising them are
described. The extent to which
successful strategy implementation
involves stakeholders other than the
writer is clearly articulated.
For some of the stakeholder groups:
If there are potential challenges
identified, these are explained and
realistic strategies for minimising
them are described. The extent to
which successful strategy
implementation involves
stakeholders other than the writer is
clearly articulated.
For some of the identified
stakeholder groups: If there are
potential challenges identified, these
are explained and realistic strategies
for minimising them are described.
For each stakeholder group: If it is
felt that the changes will be well
received, reasons for this are
described and supported by
evidence.
Distinction (DN)
There is insufficient detail about
potential challenges and strategies
to address these, or about reasons
the changes will be well received.
For some of the identified
stakeholder groups: If it is felt that
the changes will be well received,
reasons for this are described.
For some of the stakeholder groups:
If it is felt that the changes will be
well received, reasons for this are
described and supported by
evidence.
Use of appropriate
university policies,
procedures and
guidelines, and
teaching and
learning literature.
There is extensive evidence that
the paper has been written in light
of consideration of the UTAS
Guidelines for Good Assessment
Practice
Guidelines.
There is extensive evidence that
the paper has been written in light
of consideration of the UTAS
Guidelines for Good Assessment
Practice
Guidelines.
There is some evidence that the
paper has been written in light of
consideration of the UTAS
Guidelines for Good Assessment
Practice
Guidelines.
There is some evidence that the
paper has been written in light of
consideration of the UTAS
Guidelines for Good Assessment
Practice
Guidelines.
weighting 20%
It is clearly explained how the
proposed changes are consistent
with Rule 2 -Academic
Assessment and the Assessment
Policy.
It is clearly explained how the
proposed changes are consistent
with Rule 2 -Academic
Assessment and the Assessment
Policy.
There is an explanation of how
the proposed changes are
consistent with Rule 2 -Academic
Assessment and the Assessment
Policy.
There is minimal explanation of
how the proposed changes are
consistent with Rule 2 - Academic
Assessment and the Assessment
Policy
Assessment-related journal
articles and books, including
some strongly related to the
discipline in which the unit under
discussion is situated, are cited
and have extensively influenced
the paper. They include articles
other than those provided in the
ELT501 materials.
Assessment-related journal
articles and books are cited and
have clearly influenced the paper,
including articles other than those
provided in the ELT501 materials.
Assessment-related journal
articles and books, other than
those provided in the ELT501
materials, are cited and
integrated. However, it is not clear
how they support the
recommended changes.
Whilst assessment-related journal
articles and books are cited, the
extent of integration is minimal.
4
There is minimal evidence that
the paper has been written in light
of consideration of the UTAS
Guidelines for Good Assessment
Practice
Guidelines, Rule 2 - Academic
Assessment and the Assessment
Policy
There is minimal integration of
other authors’ viewpoints – as
expressed in journal articles and
books – in the paper.
ELT501 Assessment Task 3, Semester 1, 2013: Writing a Unit Outline (Weighting 50%)
Task Description
You are expected to submit a unit outline for a unit that is not offered at UTAS. Rather, the outline is to be written for a unit that you believe would be a valuable addition to an existing
course (also known as a programme).
In addition to the unit outline you are to submit a completed ‘new unit form’ and a 500 word description of why you believe the unit should be raised.
Note: The unit outline template you use must the one provided by the School/Faculty that the proposed unit would be housed in. If no such template exists use the default UTAS one,
available at: www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines
Task Length
3000 words (Not including words already provided in the unit outline and new unit form templates.)
Criterion
Extent to which
knowledge of
institutional unit
outline
requirements and
guidelines is
demonstrated.
weighting 35%
High Distinction (HD)
The unit outline is fully compliant
with the requirements of a unit
outline, as described in the
following three points:
- the template available at
www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines , with regards to essential
(i.e. mandated) features;
- the Code of Conduct in Teaching
and Learning (
www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/policy/alphabetical ); and
- your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
The content of the unit outline is
clearly based on consideration of
guidelines, as articulated at
www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines
Distinction (DN)
The unit outline is predominately
compliant with the requirements of
a unit outline, as described in the
following three points:
- the template available at
www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines , with regards to essential
(i.e. mandated) features;
- the Code of Conduct in Teaching
and Learning (
www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/policy/alphabetical ); and
- your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
The content of the unit outline is
clearly based on consideration of
guidelines, as articulated at
www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines
Where applicable, annotations are
made on the unit outline indicating
when elements (i.e. parts) of the
unit outline are included in order to
Where applicable, annotations are
made on the unit outline indicating
when elements (i.e. parts) of the
unit outline are included in order to
Credit (CR)
The unit outline is predominately
compliant with the requirements of
a unit outline, as described in the
following two points:
- the Code of Conduct in Teaching
and Learning (
www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/policy/alphabetical ); and
- your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
The unit outline does not contain
all of the essential (i.e. mandated)
features as indicated in the
template at www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines
The content of the unit outline is
based on some consideration of
guidelines, as articulated at
www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines
Pass (PP)
The unit outline is mostly compliant
with the requirements of a unit
outline, as described in the
following two points:
- the Code of Conduct in Teaching
and Learning (
www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/policy/alphabetical ); and
- your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
Many essential (i.e. mandated)
features as indicated in the
template at www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines are missing from the unit
outline.
There is minimal evidence that the
unit outline is based on
consideration of guidelines, as
articulated at www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/unitoutlines
Where applicable, annotations are
made on the unit outline indicating
Not all necessary annotations are
made on the unit outline indicating
5
Fail (NN)
The unit outline is not compliant
with many of the requirements
of a unit outline, as described in
the following three points:
- the template available at
www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/u
nit-outlines , with regards to
essential (i.e. mandated)
features;
- the Code of Conduct in
Teaching and Learning (
www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/policy/alphabetical ); and
- your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
There is minimal evidence that
the unit outline is based on
consideration of guidelines, as
articulated at www.teachinglearning.utas.edu.au/planning/u
nit-outlines
Extent to which
knowledge of the
theories and
principles of
teaching and
learning is
demonstrated
through the
construction of a
quality unit outline.
weighting 35%
comply with UTAS mandated
features that are NOT currently
part of your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
comply with UTAS mandated
features that are NOT currently
part of your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
The intended learning outcomes
(i.e. ILOs) are exemplars of good
practice with respect to the number
of outcomes and their phrasing.
The description of the assessment
tasks is an exemplar of good
assessment practice, and contains
for each task a task title, a task
description, a task length, links to
ILOs, assessment criteria and the
due date.
The unit outline is an exemplar of
the application of constructive
alignment principles, with respect
to the intended learning outcomes
and the assessment tasks.
The unit outline is written and
designed to a standard that is
clearly consistent with the
principles and theories of teaching
and learning as articulated in the
following three points:
- the UTAS publication: Guidelines
for Good Assessment Practice;
- discussions and handouts
distributed during the ELT501
face-to-face days; and
- the Biggs and Tang (2007)
publication: Teaching for Quality
Learning at University.
The majority of the ILOs are
exemplars of good practice with
respect to the number of outcomes
and their phrasing.
The description of the assessment
tasks is an exemplar of good
assessment practice, and contains
for each task a task title, a task
description, a task length, links to
ILOs, assessment criteria and the
due date.
There is a high degree of
alignment between the ILOs and
the assessment tasks.
The unit outline is written and
designed to a standard that is
mostly consistent with the
principles and theories of teaching
and learning as articulated in the
following three points:
- the UTAS publication: Guidelines
for Good Assessment Practice;
- discussions and handouts
distributed during the ELT501
face-to-face days; and
- the Biggs and Tang (2007)
publication: Teaching for Quality
Learning at University.
Note: There is no expectation that
the unit outline includes
annotations to the sources of best
practice that you have based your
unit outline on. That is, there is no
expectation of explicitly citing the
Note: There is no expectation that
the unit outline includes
annotations to the sources of best
practice that you have based your
unit outline on. That is, there is no
expectation of explicitly citing the
literature that has guided your
writing of the outline. Consequently
when elements (i.e. parts) of the
unit outline are included in order to
comply with UTAS mandated
features that are NOT currently
part of your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
The majority of the ILOs are
exemplars of good practice with
respect to the number of outcomes
and their phrasing.
Most of the assessment tasks are
described in sufficient detail
through the provision for each task
of most of the following elements:
A task title, a task description, a
task length, links to ILOs,
assessment criteria and the due
date.
Alignment between most of the
ILOs and the assessment tasks is
evident.
The unit outline is written and
designed to a standard that is
generally consistent with the
principles and theories of teaching
and learning as articulated in the
following three points:
- the UTAS publication: Guidelines
for Good Assessment Practice;
- discussions and handouts
distributed during the ELT501
face-to-face days; and
- the Biggs and Tang (2007)
publication: Teaching for Quality
Learning at University.
Note: There is no expectation that
the unit outline includes
annotations to the sources of best
practice that you have based your
unit outline on. That is, there is no
expectation of explicitly citing the
literature that has guided your
6
when elements (i.e. parts) of the
unit outline are included in order to
comply with UTAS mandated
features that are NOT currently
part of your Faculty’s unit outline
template, if one exists.
The majority of the ILOs are
exemplars of good practice with
respect to the number of outcomes
and their phrasing.
The description of the assessment
tasks is lacking, with many of the
following elements missing for
each task: A task title, a task
description, a task length, links to
ILOs, assessment criteria and the
due date.
Alignment between most of the
ILOs and the assessment tasks is
difficult to ascertain due to a
combination of insufficient
assessment task descriptions and
inadequately constructed ILOs.
The unit outline is written and
designed to a standard that is
loosely consistent with the
principles and theories of teaching
and learning as articulated in the
following three points:
- the UTAS publication: Guidelines
for Good Assessment Practice;
- discussions and handouts
distributed during the ELT501
face-to-face days; and
- the Biggs and Tang (2007)
publication: Teaching for Quality
Learning at University.
Note: There is no expectation that
the unit outline includes
annotations to the sources of best
practice that you have based your
unit outline on. That is, there is no
Many of the ILOs lack a
structure, including phrasing,
consistent with quality outcomes
written in accordance with
guidelines presented in ELT501.
The description of the
assessment tasks is lacking,
with many of the following
elements missing for each task:
A task title, a task description, a
task length, links to ILOs,
assessment criteria and the due
date.
Alignment between most of the
ILOs and the assessment tasks
cannot be determined due to a
combination of insufficient
assessment task descriptions
and inadequately constructed
ILOs.
Note: There is no expectation
that the unit outline includes
annotations to the sources of
best practice that you have
based your unit outline on. That
is, there is no expectation of
explicitly citing the literature that
has guided your writing of the
outline. Consequently there is
no expectation of a reference
list associated with this criterion.
The strength of the
succinct justification
for why the unit
should be raised,
with reference to
the current UTAS
environment and
higher education
trends.
weighting 20%
The degree to
which the new unit
form complies with
UTAS guidelines,
contains a unit
description that
accurately
describes the unit’s
aim, markets the
unit, and is
consistent with the
unit outline.
weighting 10%
literature that has guided your
writing of the outline. Consequently
there is no expectation of a
reference list associated with this
criterion.
there is no expectation of a
reference list associated with this
criterion.
writing of the outline. Consequently
there is no expectation of a
reference list associated with this
criterion.
expectation of explicitly citing the
literature that has guided your
writing of the outline. Consequently
there is no expectation of a
reference list associated with this
criterion.
The justification is succinct and is
clearly related to the unit described
on the new unit form and the unit
outline.
The justification is succinct and is
clearly related to the unit described
on the new unit form and the unit
outline.
The justification clearly relates to
the unit described on the new unit
form and the unit outline.
The justification relates to the unit
described on the new unit form
and the unit outline.
The explanation of why the unit
should be raised (i.e. why UTAS
should have such a unit) explains
the gaps in a current course(s) that
the new unit is designed to at least
partially full.
The explanation of why the unit
should be raised (i.e. why UTAS
should have such a unit) explains
the gaps in a current course(s) that
the new unit is designed to at least
partially full.
The explanation of why the unit
should be raised (i.e. why UTAS
should have such a unit) explains
the gaps in a current course(s) that
the new unit is designed to at least
partially full.
The explanation of why the unit
should be raised (i.e. why UTAS
should have such a unit) lacks
sufficient explanation of the gaps
in a current course(s) that the new
unit is designed to at least partially
full.
The justification draws on all of the
following: Your perspective as an
expert in your field, your
perspective as a teacher, your
awareness of trends in the
Australian Higher Education
sector, and the needs of
employers of UTAS alumni.
The justification draws on the
majority of the following: Your
perspective as an expert in your
field, your perspective as a
teacher, your awareness of trends
in the Australian Higher Education
sector, and the needs of
employers of UTAS alumni.
The new unit form is fully
completed, with the exception of
the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’,
‘default group for BA and BSc’,
‘Will any units be deleted as a
result of introducing this unit?’,
‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’,
‘Schedule details if any’, the
‘authorisation details’ and all boxes
below the authorisation details.
That is, the details listed in the
previous sentence are NOT
required. All else is required.
The new unit form is almost fully
completed, with the exception of
the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’,
‘default group for BA and BSc’,
‘Will any units be deleted as a
result of introducing this unit?’,
‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’,
‘Schedule details if any’, the
‘authorisation details’ and all boxes
below the authorisation details.
That is, the details listed in the
previous sentence are NOT
required. All else is required.
The new unit form is mostly
completed, with the exception of
the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’,
‘default group for BA and BSc’,
‘Will any units be deleted as a
result of introducing this unit?’,
‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’,
‘Schedule details if any’, the
‘authorisation details’ and all boxes
below the authorisation details.
That is, the details listed in the
previous sentence are NOT
required. All else is required.
The new unit form is mostly
completed, with the exception of
the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’,
‘default group for BA and BSc’,
‘Will any units be deleted as a
result of introducing this unit?’,
‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’,
‘Schedule details if any’, the
‘authorisation details’ and all boxes
below the authorisation details.
That is, the details listed in the
previous sentence are NOT
required. All else is required.
The ‘handbook entry – unit
description’ is consistent with the
contents of the unit outline and is
written in a manner consistent with
its use as a marketing tool, on the
The ‘handbook entry – unit
description’ is consistent with the
contents of the unit outline.
However, it is not written in a
manner consistent with attracting
The ‘handbook entry – unit
description’ is consistent with the
contents of the unit outline.
However, it is not written in a
manner consistent with attracting
The ‘handbook entry – unit
description’ is consistent with the
contents of the unit outline.
However, it is not written in a
manner consistent with attracting
The justification draws on at most
two of the following: Your
perspective as an expert in your
field, your perspective as a
teacher, your awareness of trends
in the Australian Higher Education
sector, and the needs of
employers of UTAS alumni.
7
The explanation of why the unit
should be raised (i.e. why UTAS
should have such a unit) is of a
minimal nature and lacks an
argument that justifies why the
University should consider
raising the unit.
The justification draws on at most
one of the following: Your
perspective as an expert in your
field, your perspective as a
teacher, your awareness of trends
in the Australian Higher Education
sector, and the needs of
employers of UTAS alumni.
The new unit form is incomplete,
with many of the required parts
not filled in.
The ‘handbook entry – unit
description’ is inconsistent with
the contents of the unit outline.
There are many differences
between the required fields on
the new unit form and the
contents of the unit outline.
basis that many students refer to
such descriptions – available on
the Course and Unit Database (i.e.
CUD) - when deciding what units
to study.
All required fields on the new unit
form are consistent with the
contents of the unit outline.
All required fields are completed in
compliance with the ‘explanatory
notes’ provided at the end of the
new unit form and on the Flexible
Delivery Definitions - Staff
document.
its primary audience – students –
to enrol in the unit.
its primary audience – students –
to enrol in the unit.
its primary audience – students –
to enrol in the unit.
All required fields on the new unit
form are consistent with the
contents of the unit outline.
The majority of the required fields
on the new unit form are consistent
with the contents of the unit
outline.
There are many differences
between the required fields on the
new unit form and the contents of
the unit outline.
All required fields are completed in
compliance with the ‘explanatory
notes’ provided at the end of the
new unit form and on the Flexible
Delivery Definitions - Staff
document.
Most required fields are completed
in compliance with the ‘explanatory
notes’ provided at the end of the
new unit form and on the Flexible
Delivery Definitions - Staff
document.
All required fields are completed in
compliance with the ‘explanatory
notes’ provided at the end of the
new unit form and on the Flexible
Delivery Definitions - Staff
document.
8