Contemporary creative practitioners are required to develop a range of engagement and impact strategies to extend the communication of their work. Students will be exposed to diverse professional opportunities such as running workshops, community projects and creating participatory artworks in public space. They will work closely with Canberra-based institutions to devise and deliver a public program, using their class peers as participants and test subjects. Depending on the brief, these public programs could focus on real-world problematics such as sustainability, place-making, well-being or marginalisation. Through collaboration, consultation and direct experience, students will deepen their understanding of materials-based and research-led practice.

Overall, this course expands upon what it is to be a creative practitioner by examining the objectives and possibilities of public engagement and wider social impact. 

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. respond to a brief by researching and developing engagement methodologies and formats;
2. work collaboratively and professionally as part of a team, taking a leadership role when required, and constructively contributing to peer learning wherever possible;
3. interpret, communicate and present ideas, problems and arguments in modes suited to a range of audiences and/or institutions;
4. demonstrate knowledge and understanding public engagement as a methodology and outcome within contemporary creative practices; and
5. document and critically reflect on engagement processes, formats and outcomes.

Research-Led Teaching

This semester's Public Project includes direct engagement and participation in Lucy Irvine's research, as part of the exhibition Materiality at Canberra Museum and Art Gallery. Both lecturers will regularly draw from their own artistic, academic and professional experience to provide case studies for teaching. Students have the opportunity to develop their own approaches to public programming through practice-led research, taking their learning out of the classroom and into the public realm.

Field Trips

This course includes multiple local field trips in Weeks 2,3,4,9,10 & 11. Field trip locations are either in walking distance of from campus or are easily accessible by public transport.

Additional Course Costs

Student contribution amounts under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) and tuition fees support the course described in the Class Summary and include tuition, teaching materials, and student access to the workshops for the stated course hours.

The Material Fee is payable to the School of Art & Design to supply consumables and materials that become your physical property. The Additional Materials Fee is payable for materials you use in addition to those supplied as part of the course. You can purchase additional material from the Workshop and take advantage of the GST-free status. These materials are also WHS and workshop process compliant.

Students have the option to obtain After hours Access to workshop and studio spaces outside of class delivery. After hours Access is defined as access to workshop and studio spaces outside of business hours between 6.00pm and 10:00pm Monday to Friday and 9am – 4pm Saturday - Sunday. It is afforded to students by paying an After hours Access Fee each semester.

For further information and to Pay Materials and Access Fees go to: https://soad.cass.anu.edu.au/required-resources-and-incidental-fees  

Examination Material or equipment

This course includes a range of examination formats. Please note that Assessment Task 1: Symposium Talk & Mini Participatory Program requires students to prepare materials in advance and physically bring them to assessment. Assessment Task 3 Collaborative Public Program: includes both the preparation of materials and delivery of a public program off campus.

Required Resources

Wattle plays a vital role in this course's delivery. In addition to the key resources that will be available on Wattle, students are expected to access the ANU library for independent research.

Recommended Resources

Whether you are on campus or studying online, there are a variety of online platforms you will use to participate in your study program. These could include videos for lectures and other instruction, two-way video conferencing for interactive learning, email and other messaging tools for communication, interactive web apps for formative and collaborative activities, print and/or photo/scan for handwritten work and drawings, and home-based assessment.

ANU outlines recommended student system requirements to ensure you are able to participate fully in your learning. Other information is also available about the various Learning Platforms you may use.

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• written comments
• verbal comments
• feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Wednesday 21st February 9.00-13.00Location: Sir Roland Wilson Building .03	Course Overview - discussion of all assessment tasks Lecture and interactive activities.
2	Wednesday 28th February 9.00-13.00Location: Belco Arts
3	Wednesday 6th March 9.00-13.00Location: Canberra Museum & Art Gallery
4	Wednesday 13th March 9.00-13.00Location: Civic Square and City Hill
5	Wednesday 20th March 9.00-13.00Location: Sir Roland Wilson Building .03	Present Task 1: Symposium Talk & Mini Participatory Program
6	Wednesday 27th March 9.00-13.00Location: Textiles Upstairs Teaching Space
7	Wednesday 17th April 9.00-13.00Location: Textiles Upstairs Teaching Space	Submit Task 2: Collaborative Public Program: Proposal
8	Wednesday 24th April 9.00-13.00Location: Textiles Upstairs Teaching Space
9	Wednesday 1st May 9.00-13.00Location: CMAG, Civic Square and City Hill	Present Task 3: Collaborative Public Program: Delivery Depending on location and length of each public program, groups will present in either Weeks 9, 10 or 11
10	Wednesday 8th May 9.00-13.00Location: CMAG, Civic Square and City Hill	Present Task 3: Collaborative Public Program: Delivery
11	Wednesday 15th May 9.00-13.00Location: Belco Arts	Present Task 3: Collaborative Public Program: Delivery
12	Wednesday 22nd May 9.00-13.00Location: Textiles Upstairs Teaching Space	Course reviewPreparation for Task 4: Individual Reflection

Tutorial Registration

ANU utilises MyTimetable to enable students to view the timetable for their enrolled courses, browse, then self-allocate to small teaching activities / tutorials so they can better plan their time. Find out more on the Timetable webpage.

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date	Return of assessment	Learning Outcomes
Symposium Talk & Mini Participatory Program	20 %	20/03/2024	27/03/2024	1,2,3,4
Collaborative Public Program: Proposal	20 %	17/04/2024	24/04/2024	1,2,3,4
Collaborative Public Program: Delivery	40 %	01/05/2024	27/06/2024	1,2,3
Individual Reflection	20 %	03/06/2024	27/06/2024	4,5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Extenuating Circumstances Application
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
• Code of practice for teaching and learning

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Participation

Participation is a key factor for learning in this course. It is assessed directly in Assessment Tasks 1,2&3 and reflected upon in Assessment Task 4.

Assessment Task 1

Symposium Talk & Mini Participatory Program

Value: 20%

Time and location: Assessed in class 9am-1pm 20th March during the Week 5 Symposium

Format: 4-minute PowerPoint talk with a maximum of 3 Slides (plus a bibliography slide) and an accompanying 3-minute mini participatory program to be delivered 1 on 1 up to ten times. Symposium Miro Board to capture engagement in proceedings.

Return date: 27.03.24

Details of Task:

Each student’s contribution to the Symposium includes presenting a 4-minute PowerPoint talk, delivering a 3-minute Mini Program and participation in the proceedings. Please follow the steps below for the development and delivery of a 4-minute PowerPoint talk and a 3-minute Mini Program.

Step 1: Select one of the public project examples from the list provided (in the assessment topic on course Wattle). Research the project so that you can answer the following questions:

Who is it for? What scale is the project? Is the authorship of the artist important? What would it feel like to be a participant? What do you think about the format, methods and motive? What stands out to you as particularly successful or problematic about this community engagement?

Step 2: Choose one aspect of the public project you have analysed to become the catalyst for your mini program. What can you test quickly and simply in response to what you considered to be successful or problematic? It could be a material, technique or mode of delivery. It could be an emotional quality, a level of anonymity or intimacy. It could be the ethics or philosophy that frame the work in practice.

Step 3: For the Week 5 Symposium, devise a 3-minute one-to-one Mini Program that can be repeated ten times. The number of times you repeat the engagement could be an important aspect of the work, it could be something that accumulatively grows or transforms. Of course, it could also be a completely immaterial activity; yet you will probably find each time feels different. Test out your ideas, combine and refine the format/materials and the methods/techniques you are going to invite people to participate in, time the task, craft the kind of prompts you will give so that they are clear and engaging.  There will be mini workstations throughout the SRWB, or you can use an outdoor space immediately adjacent to the building if discussed in advance. It is very important to plan beforehand: have your materials prepared and ready, know where your workstation is, and have your Mini Program well timed to optimise your delivery.

Step 4: Prepare a 4-minute PowerPoint Talk that presents the following:  

Briefly describe the Public Project you selected from the list. Drawing from your research and analysis put forward a concise argument for what you feel is successful or problematic about the work. Use at least one reference from the class key texts (in Reading and Resources on course Wattle) to support your argument. Explain how your mini program extrapolates from your argument and tests it out in practice. Use a maximum of 3 slides plus a bibliography slide. Chicago Manual of Style | Australian National University

Rubric

CRITERIA	HD	D	C	P	F
PowerPoint Talk 40% 15% Communication at academic level (LO3) 25% Analysis & Argument (LO4)	Talk delivered with oral and visual clarity. Excellent use of images and quotes with correctly formatted referencing. Acute analysis of methods, format and motive is used to argue for the success/failure of the project. Demonstrates further understanding and supports own argument through use of 2 highly relevant references.	Well delivered talk. Good use of images and quotes with correctly formatted referencing. Convincing analysis of methods, format and motive is used to argue for the success/failure of the project. Demonstrates further understanding and supports own argument through use of 2 relevant references.	A mainly well delivered talk. Attempts to uses of images and quotes with correctly formatted referencing. Some analysis of methods, format and motive is used to argue for the success/failure of the project though it remains descriptive. Demonstrates a developing understanding through use of 1 relevant quote.	Sufficient delivery of talk, indication that communication skills could be improved for future assessment tasks. Talk was predominantly descriptive, or analysis did not quite make sense. Basic understanding with an attempt to use references.	Talk was poorly delivered and did not fulfil the task.
Mini participatory program 30% 15% Method & format (LO1) 15% Delivery (LO 1&3)	Clever use of method and format given the parameters of the program Engaging delivery with clear focus on the participant's experience Well prepared	Good use of method and format given the parameters of the program Well delivered with consideration for the participant Well prepared	Good attempt at method and format given the parameters of the program. Okay delivery but could engage more with participant Fairly well prepared	Attempts to bring together method and format. Sufficient delivery to instruct someone. Some issues with preparation	Has not sufficiently considered or prepared a method and format. Insufficient instructions
Connection between the Powerpoint Talk & Mini Participatory Program 10%(LO1,3,4)	The connection between the talk analysis and mini participation demonstrates a clever synthesis of research and practice.	The connection between the talk analysis and the mini participation is clear and interesting.	There is a connection between the talk content and mini participation, though a little didactic or tenuous	A basic connection has been made between the talk content and mini participation.	The connection between the talk content and mini participation is insufficient or has not been addressed.
Participation and contribution to peer learning 20% 10% Participation (LO2) 10% Engagement in collective learning (LO2)	You whole-hearted participated in the Mini Programs delivered by all the other students in your rotation, even if it meant going outside your comfort zone. You contributed insightfully at least 5 times to the Proceedings Miro Board demonstrating high level engagement with the Symposium content.	You enthusiastically participated in the Mini Programs delivered by all the other students in your rotation. You contributed at least 4 times to Proceedings Miro Board demonstrating good level of engagement with the Symposium content.	You participated in the Mini Programs delivered by other students in your rotation with a level of enthusiasm. You contributed at least 3 times to Proceedings Miro Board demonstrating some good engagement with the Symposium content.	You participated in the Mini Programs delivered by other students in your rotation. You contributed at least 2 times to the Proceedings Miro Board demonstrating sufficient engagement with the Symposium content.	For an insufficient reason, you did not participate in all the Mini Programs by other students in your rotation. You contributed to the Proceedings Miro Board less than 2 times or included inappropriate content.

Assessment Task 2

Collaborative Public Program: Proposal

Value: 20%

Time and Location: Submitted via Wattle by 5pm 17th April (Week 7)

Format: PDF Proposal, collaboration observed in class and acquitted via the Collaborative Planning Spreadsheet

*Whilst the proposal is assessed collectively, grades may vary depending on level of collaboration and contribution to the workload*

Return date: 24.04.24

Details of Task:

Select one of the briefs for Belco Arts, Canberra Museum & Gallery, Civic Square or City Hill (in assessment topic on course Wattle) to respond to and prepare a proposal for delivering a public program:

• In no more than 300 words describe your proposed public program. What is the concept? How does it respond to the brief?
• Include sketches or photographs to further explain your methods and the potential outcome.
• Each group has up to $150 to spend on their program, provide a budget breakdown of all material costs including any funds already used for tests and prototyping.
• Include a logistics timeline for bump in (preparation), delivery and bump out (pack up)

Rubric

CRITERIA	HD	D	C	P	F
Response to brief 40% 20% Concept (LO 1,3,4) 20% Understanding of context (LO1,3,4)	Strong concept, an exciting and thoughtful combination of methodology/format/motive Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of institutions/public space and the potential experience for participants.	Concept with good potential, shows sound approach to combining methodology/format/motive. Demonstrates sound understanding of institutions/public space and the potential experience for participants.	Concept has some potential, shows consideration of methodology/formats/motive. Demonstrates a developing understanding of institutions/public space and the potential experience for participants.	Basic but workable concept needs more consideration of how the program will be delivered and what the motive/intention is. Attempts to consider the institutions/public space involved and what the experience might be like for participants.	Concept is unclear or below academic standards. Little consideration of the institutions/public space involved and what the experience might be like for participants.
Clearly communicated proposal 15% (LO2&3)	Articulate and comprehensive proposal presented at a professional level. Excellent use of images to evoke the delivery and outcomes.	Well written and mainly thorough proposal developing professional presentation skills. Good use of images to evoke the delivery and outcomes.	Fairly well written proposal that includes each of the requirements. Images communicate delivery and outcomes.	Proposal can be followed and understood. Attempts requirements but information is incomplete. Has included images though they don't add much weight to the proposal.	Proposal is confusing. Insufficient information has been provided.
Viability 30% (LO 3,4) 15% Budget 15% Timeline	Cost breakdown is comprehensive and realistic including appropriate materials within budget. Timeline is clear and demonstrates excellent forward planning and preempting potential problems.	Cost breakdown is fairly comprehensive and realistic including appropriate materials within budget. Timeline is clear and demonstrates some good forward planning.	Cost breakdown covers most items but needs more detail. Some realistic consideration of budget. Timeline needs more detail but is mainly feasible.	Cost breakdown lacks detail, some concerns raised about viability. Timeline has been attempted but needs further planning.	Cost breakdown is insufficient to gauge viability, or the project is over budget. Timeline cannot be followed.
Collaboration 15% (LO2)	All collaborators are contributing equally to the workload, this may be in different ways as roles and responsibilities are clear and followed through. Each collaborator is contributing creatively through research, ideation, testing and putting together the proposal.	Collaborators are mainly contributing equally to the workload; this may be in different ways as roles and responsibilities are clear and followed through most of the time. Each collaborator is contributing creatively to some extent through research, ideation, testing and putting together the proposal.	Collaborators are all contributing to the workload but unevenly. Responsibilities could be better defined. Creative input is mainly with some members of the group.	Attempt to use the Collaborative Planning Spreadsheet but workload and creative input is unfairly sitting with some collaborators.	Unreliable group member who has not taken sufficient responsibility for workload or creative input.

Assessment Task 3

Collaborative Public Program: Delivery

Value: 40%

Time and Location: Depending on location and duration of each public program, groups will present in either Weeks 9, 10 or 11 during class time, or if directly engaging with the public, then potentially presenting outside class time if discussed and organised well in advance)

Format: Public Program run either with classmates or actual public as participants, a lecturer will be present to assess for the duration of the program. Collaboration is acquitted via the Collaborative Planning Spreadsheet.

Return Date: 27.06.24

Details of Task:

After receiving feedback on your proposal further develop your program by refining the concept, methodology and format to the original brief. The duration of the program that you are devising will depend upon on the mode of delivery. For example, a structured workshop run in class time with fellow students might last an hour, where as a community project might involve a 2-hour drop-in session when the public can stay for as long or as short as they want. Plan your time - in preparation and delivery- in relation to the material processes you are using and the outcomes and engagement you hope to achieve.

Please note that Hazard Risk Assessments, discussions with lecturers and technical officers and the agreement of host institutions all need to happen before the Public Program can be delivered.

Rubric

CRITERIA	HD	D	C	P	F
Program Design 10% Concept (LO 1& 3) 30% Methodology and format (LO 1&3)	Brilliant well-informed concept that is further developed since proposal. Critical methodology and format - they dovetail together making the conceptual and material design of the program seamless	Engaging concept that is further developed since proposal. Sound methodology and format that complement each other.	Satisfactory concept with some development since proposal. Methodology attempted in connection with format.	Basic but tangible concept little development since proposal Connection made between concept and format.	Concept is confusing. Method and format do not make sense together.
Delivery 20% (LO 3)	Confident and thoughtful delivery. Responsive to and highly engaged with participants. Impressive outcome	Fairly confident delivery. Able to respond to and engage with participants. Good outcome	Competent delivery. Mainly able to engage with participants. Some good outcomes	Fairly competent delivery. Some engagement with participants. Completed outcome.	Incompetant delivery. Limited communication with participants. Incomplete outcome
Organisation 20% (LO2)	Exemplary organisation: Materials were well prepared. Program started on time. Timing of activities was excellent either by adhering to or adapting the plan. Bump in and bump out went smoothly. Fantastic co-ordination, each group member knew what they were doing.	High level organisation: Materials were mainly well prepared. Program started on time. Timing of activities was mostly good either by adhering to or adapting the plan. Bump in and bump out went well. Each group member knew what they were doing.	Workable organisation: Materials were prepared. Timing of start or finish was off by about 15 minutes. Bump in and bump out were completed. Each group member knew what they were doing most of the time.	Some organisation problems. Materials were provided. Program ran to completion but over or under time by more than 20 minutes. Bump in and bump out were completed. Group member/s were confused as to their role.	Disorganised public program
Collaboration 20% (LO2)	All collaborators contributed equally to the workload, this may be in different ways as roles and responsibilities are clear and followed through. Each collaborator contributed creatively to development and preparation.	Collaborators mainly contributed equally to the workload; this may be in different ways as roles and responsibilities are clear and followed through most of the time. Each collaborator has contributed creatively to some extent through to development and preparation.	Collaborators all contributed to the workload but unevenly. Responsibilities could have been better defined. Creative input is mainly with some members of the group.	Attempted to use the Collaborative Planning Spreadsheet but workload and creative input and output sat unfairly with some group members.	Unreliable group member who has not taken sufficient responsibility for workload or creative input

Assessment Task 4

Individual Reflection

Value: 20%

Time and Location: Submitted via Wattle by 9am Monday 3rd June

Format: Written reflection max 1000 words plus annotated images and bibliography

Details of Task:

Using photos, sketches and notes that you have collated throughout the semester, write a critical reflection using the following prompts:

Your experience as a participant (approx 200 words) 

• Choose one of the activities from Weeks 2-4 and one of the other group’s public programs that you participated in that you found most challenging, engaging or learnt the most from.
• Identify what it was about those two forms of engagement – their format, methods, concept and/or outcomes – that has stayed with you and informed your own approach.
• Include sketches or photographs where you can, to illustrate your observations. 

Your experience as a collaborator (approx 200 words) 

• Evaluate your own participation as part of a team and describe your approach to collaboration. How has this developed throughout the semester?
• Give an example of a professional creative collaboration (including an image of their work) or theoretical text that has helped you consider your own role as a collaborator.
• Give an example of where your group problem solved collectively and describe the role you played. 

Your experience as a facilitator/presenter/teacher/instigator (approx 100 words) 

• What happened that was unexpected in delivering your Public Program and how did you adapt?
• What would you do differently or expand upon in devising and delivering the program if you could do it again? 

Reflecting on Institutions (approx 200 words) 

• Identify an example of where an institution we have worked with this semester is doing well to foster community engagement or describe an instance where they could do better.
• Give an example of what you consider best practice from institution or organisation that you have discovered, this could be local, national or international. What is it that they do well? 

Reflecting on research into practice (approx 200 words) 

• Reflect upon 2-3 instances where the experience of developing or delivering your public program deepened your understanding of things you have read during the course (these can be from key texts or from your own research) or changed your mind about them.
• Include sketches or photographs where you can, to illustrate your observations.

Rubric

CRITERIA	HD	D	C	P	F
Acquired Knowledge 40% LO4	Observations, images, examples and evaluation demonstrate depth of knowledge and nuanced understanding Bibliography extends beyond key texts and artists to at least three highly relevant references from independent research.	Observations, images examples and evaluation demonstrate good knowledge and understanding. Bibliography extends beyond key texts and artists to at least one relevant reference from independent research.	Observations, images, examples and evaluation demonstrate developing knowledge and some good understanding. Bibliography uses mainly relevant references.	Observations, images, examples and evaluation demonstrate a basic knowledge and engagement with ideas. Some of the prompts have not been fully answered.	More than 4 prompts have not been adequately answered and so knowledge and understanding cannot be verified.
Critical Reflection 60% LO5	Demonstrates a rich quality of engagement and learning through retrospective critique of processes, formats and outcomes. Reflects deeply on role in collaboration and broader context of public engagement.	Demonstrates a high quality of engagement and learning through retrospective critique of processes, formats and outcomes. Reflects soundly on role in collaboration and broader context of public engagement.	Attempts critique but is mainly descriptive of events. Trys to reflects on role in collaboration and broader context of public engagement.	Describes experiences that connect to learning. Limited reflection but examples are provided.	Inadequate reflection

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.

 

The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Late Submission

Individual assessment tasks may or may not allow for late submission. Policy regarding late submission is detailed below:

• Late submission not permitted. If submission of assessment tasks without an extension after the due date is not permitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded.
• Late submission permitted. Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Access and inclusion for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills and Learning Centre supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students