Composition: Methods and Craft offers students an in-depth study of a specialised area of music composition. Through this topics course, students explore a particular composer, style/genre, texture/instrumentation, technique, or set of compositional practices. Students will engage with compositional material through both guided and independent artistic research activities, applying new critical, analytical, and technical skills to assigned composition tasks.

Students may complete this course twice for a maximum credit value of 12 units, provided they enrol in a different topic in each instance/semester. Please note that the course content, assessment structure, and reading list will change depending on the topic and the expertise of the lecturer convening the course. Please refer to the class summary for the specific term in which you wish to enrol for a detailed description.

Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• From Solos to Small Groups
• Quartets, Larger Groups, and Collaborations
• Orchestration and Arranging

Learning Outcomes

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

1. recognise and apply terminology, concepts, tools and skills in the context of the course topic;
2. work independently and collaboratively in to create new work in the context of the course topic (e.g. composing, staging performances, and recording);
3. demonstrate the experimentation of expansion of conceptual and aesthetic principles in the context of the course topic; and
4. critically analyse and discuss the musical works of one’s self and others.

Required Resources

• Notebook
• Manuscript
• Laptop with Sibelius or MuseScore software

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.

Other Information

Composition techniques include established benchmark techniques and late C20th techniques. What is not covered is traditional harmony and counterpoint (which are covered in the Theory and Aural courses), yet students must have a working knowledge of harmony and counterpoint to succeed in this course.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Course Overview including Assessments discussion. Writing for solo instruments- Compositional approach- Intention- Technical considerationsComposing for amateurs	An overview of writing for solo instruments – is it just a melody? Create a soloist profile, including age, experience and capability.
2	Writing for solo instruments part 2: Woodwind (non transposing) - Flute- Oboe- Bassoon	Using harmonic frameworks to inspire compositional approach to writing solos.Biographical study: Arthur Benjamin (1893-1960) Assessment #2, Exercise #1: Create a solo line around the harmonic progression of a 12 or 16 bar blues. Consider technical considerations of flute or oboe.
3	Writing for solo instruments part 2: Woodwind - Clarinet family- Saxophone familytransposing instruments	Considering dance/rhythmic structures and repetition when writing monophonically.Biographical study: Ross Edwards (b. 1943) Assessment #2, Exercise #2: Working in pairs and modelled on the form of Ulpirra for clarinet, create a solo line for a clarinet or saxophone using repetition of motif.
4	Writing for solo instruments part 3: Brass - Conical bore- Straight bore- Valves- SlidesPartials	Utilising shapes and landscape to inspire compositional approach to writing solos. Assessment #2, Exercise #3: Using geometrical and/or geographical shapes in conjunction with modes, create a 12-16 bar solo line for a brass instrument of your choice.
5	1-to-1 sessions on Assessment #1: solo work
6	Solo piece draft review	Hear your draft composition for solo instruments performed by professional musicians. Embrace feedback.
7	Assessment #1 feedback.  Writing for small ensembles I: exploring chord voicing strategies	Assessment #2, Exercise #4: Working in a group of 4, create a chord progression and re-arrange it to explore inversions, drones and register using melodic percussion instruments.
8	Writing for small ensembles II: utilising rhythm & texture when writing for homogenous ensembles.	Assessment #2, Exercise #5: Working in the same group of 4, use a selected version of last week’s chord progression and utilise some of Reich’s composition strategies to create rhythmic interest.
9	Writing for small ensembles III: An introduction to juxtaposition, interlocking and enclosure orchestration techniques for mixed ensembles.	Biographical presentations
10	Writing for small ensembles IV: considering space and improvisatory components in chamber works	Assessment #2, Exercise #6: Using cells, motif and soundscape, create a work for a mixed ensemble of percussion, voices and piano.
11	1-to-1 sessions on Assessment #3: composition for small ensemble	Present your draft score and receive feedback during a 30 min 1-to-1 session with the course lecturer.
12	TBC

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	Learning Outcomes
Composition for Solo Instrument	25 %	*	1, 2, 3
Australian Composer Biographical Study	20 %	16/10/2026	1, 4
Short Exercises	20 %	21/10/2026	1, 2, 3, 4,
Composition for Small Ensemble	35 %	10/11/2026	1, 2, 3, 4

* 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 ‘Canvas’ 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.

Assessment Task 1

Composition for Solo Instrument

Compose a 2-3min work for a solo woodwind or brass instrument: flute, clarinet, oboe, saxophone, trumpet, French horn or trombone. The piece should stem from works and techniques studied in class during Weeks 1-5. 

DUE DATE:

1.  Draft: To be discussed during 1-to-1 session in Week 5. Timetable TBA.

2.  Performance review (with live musicians): Week 6

3.  Final score Submission: September 11, 2026 (via Canvas)

 

Your submission is to include the following items, merged into a single PDF document:

·     Title page

·     Program notes (max. 250 words)

·     Score

 

In addition, submit:

·     Computer generated audio file (mp3 file format)

 

The score must include:

·     Title

·     Composer name

·     Instrument

·     Expressive markings

·     Tempo markings

·     Bar numbers

 

Assessment submission (via Canvas):

·     Music score (in PDF only – do not submit a file from a notation program). Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 1]_[NAME OF PIECE].pdf

·     Computer generated audio file (in MP3). Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 1]_[NAME OF PIECE].mp3 

• 
  

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Notation (25%)   Ability to present compositional ideas using traditional notation.	Score exhibits flawless, professional-grade notation. Performance directions, expressions, dynamics, and articulations are exact and leave zero ambiguity for the performer.	Score is highly accurate with clear dynamics and articulations. Rare, minor engraving anomalies that do not impede reading or performance.	Score is mostly accurate with some considered use of dynamics and articulations. Engraving capabilities are developing but still possess elements of ambiguity for the performer.	Basic notation is correct, but lacks nuanced markings (dynamics, articulations). Contains standard formatting errors that slow down reading.	Notation is incomplete, mathematically incorrect (bad rhythmic meters), or unreadable. Lacks necessary performance instructions.
Technique & Approach (25%) Demonstration of an understanding of the instrument and its capability	Demonstrates masterful idiomatic writing. Explores the instrument's unique timbral/technical capabilities flawlessly, respecting registers, breathing/bowing, and physical limits.	Writing is idiomatic and well-suited to the instrument. Shows strong awareness of range and technique, with only minor logistical awkwardness for the player.	Demonstrates a sound understanding of the instrument’s capabilities. Shows an awareness of range and technique. Some logistical issues remain.	The piece is playable but conventional or unadventurous. Contains passages that are unnecessarily awkward or slightly misunderstand the instrument's mechanics.	Writing is unplayable or completely unidiomatic (e.g., out of range, impossible leaps, ignoring breathing/string physics).
Intention (25%) Ability to link intention to the musical language of the work.	Musical language (harmony, rhythm, texture, form) perfectly and sophisticatedly reflects the stated artistic intention. The structural narrative is cohesive and compelling.	The link between the stated intention and the musical language is clear and effective. The piece maintains a strong, cohesive internal logic throughout.	Whilst the intention is clear, the musical language employed does not fully explore the intention. The piece is weakened by this disconnect.	The musical language is somewhat fragmented or inconsistent with the stated intention. The piece relies on cliches or lacks a unified structural direction.	No clear connection between the intent and the resulting musical materials. The work lacks structural coherence or an identifiable musical language.
Presentation (25%) Organisation and presentation of composition exercises (quality and neatness of audio and score files).	Executive-ready presentation. PDF layout follows professional publishing standards (margins, page turns, spacing). Audio mockup is cleanly rendered, accurately balanced, and well-organized.	Clean presentation. Score layout is highly organized with minor spacing issues. Audio file is accurate and clearly mixed with negligible digital artifacts.	Good presentation but possesses some issues relating to score layout, spacing, labelling or accuracy. Audio file is provided and clear, but maybe lacking in file labelling or clarity.	Layout is functional but messy (e.g., colliding text, poor system spacing). Audio mockup is provided but uses poor samples, is poorly mixed, or has rendering glitches.	Files are missing, incorrectly formatted, or chaotic. Score is disorganized and unreadable; audio is corrupted or missing.

Assessment Task 2

Australian Composer Biographical Study

Working in pairs, students will interview a living Australian composer and create then present a biographical study based on their findings.

 

PRESENTATION DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2026 (in class)

FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2026 (via Canvas)

 

Follow these steps to complete the assessment:

1.   Prepare set of 10 interview questions regarding upbringing, education and compositional influences are to stem from samples in the following article:

Andrews, Bernard W. "How Composers Compose: In Search of the Questions." Research and Issues in Music Education 2, no. 1 (2004): n1.

Available at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/rime/vol2/iss1/3/

2.   Select an Australian composer from the list in Appendix A.

3.   Email or contact them through their website requesting a 30 minute interview (See Appendix B for sample introductory email).

4.   Once confirmed, set up your interview time and send interview questions in advance.

5.   Host and record the interview with permission via video call.

6.   Prepare a minimum of 6 x Powerpoint slides based on your interview findings.

7.   Present an 8 minute study of your findings to the class during Weeks 9 and 10.

One slide must include your combined repertoire list of 8 works using the spreadsheet format in Appendix C to document your pieces. 

8.   Submit Interview questions (PDF), Powerpoint slides (PDF) and Repertoire List (Excel) via Canvas by Friday October 16, 2026.

 

Each student is to prepare the following individually:

·     5 interview questions and composer responses

·     Research and select two composers for potential study

·     A minimum of 3 x Powerpoint presentation slides based on findings

·     Repertoire list of 4 works as detailed in Appendix C'

Assessment Criteria

• Methodology & Interview Design (30%) (Individual & Pair) 10 questions total (5 per student) Stemming from Andrews (2004)
• Repertoire Research (20%) (Individually Assessed) 5 Q&A records, Repertoire list (4 works)
• Presentation Content & Slides (25%) (Individual & Pair), Min. 6 slides total (3 per student), Synthesis of findings
• Delivery & Time Management (25%)(Pair Execution), 8-minute presentation, Professional communication

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Methodology & Interview Design (30%)   (Individual & Pair)   • 10 questions total (5 per student) • Stemming from Andrews (2004)	Questions are deeply insightful, sophisticatedly adapting the Andrews (2004) framework to explore the composer’s upbringing, education, and specific compositional influences. Exhibits thorough advance preparation.	Questions are clear and well-structured, successfully drawing on the Andrews framework. Probes relevant biographical and artistic areas effectively.	Questions are sound but may lack some detail and/or not observe all of the elements from the Andrews framework, details may be missing or not detailed enough.	Questions are functional but generic or superficial. Relies on basic interview cliches with minimal or clumsy integration of the Andrews framework.	Questions are missing, incomplete, or fail to engage with the Andrews framework. Shows no evidence of methodology or advance preparation.
Repertoire Research (20%) (Individually Assessed) • 5 Q&A records • Repertoire list (4 works)	Submission shows exceptional academic rigor. Individual Q&A documentation is meticulous. Repertoire list of 4 works is exhaustive, perfectly formatted, and includes highly accurate links to scores/recordings.	Individual components are complete and accurate. Q&A records are clear. Repertoire list of 4 works is well-researched with reliable links to scores/recordings.	Individual components are complete but with a moderate level of detail. Q&A records are presented but may lack detail or are not well organised. Repertoire list focuses on more well-known works, links maybe broken or missing.	Individual components meet the bare minimum requirements. Repertoire list is complete but has formatting inconsistencies or missing links. Individual target research is brief.	Incomplete individual artifacts. Missing the 4 required works, lacks links, or fails to submit the 5 individual Q&As/initial 2-composer research.
Presentation Content & Slides (25%) (Individual & Pair)   • Min. 6 slides total (3 per student) • Synthesis of findings	Slides are professional, visually engaging, and highly organized. Content provides a brilliant critical synthesis of the composer’s life, influences, and musical output rather than a simple timeline of facts.	Slides are clean, clear, and well-structured. Content provides a strong biographical overview and successfully highlights the key takeaways from the interview.	Slides are good but missing detail or presented using basic layout functions. Content provides reasonable biographical detail and offers some key takeaways from the interview	Slides are functional but cluttered or poorly designed. Content is highly descriptive/biographical without offering much critical synthesis or deeper musical insight.	Slides are rushed, incomplete (fewer than required), or disorganized. Content lacks substance or fails to accurately represent the composer's work.
Delivery & Time Management (25%) (Pair Execution)   • 8-minute presentation • Professional communication	Pairs present with exceptional poise, professional engagement, and equal distribution of labor. The presentation is perfectly paced, hitting the 8-minute target precisely.	Delivery is clear, articulate, and professional. Both partners contribute substantially. Time management is strong, finishing very close to the 8-minute mark.	Delivery is good but lacking clarity or audience engagement. Both partners contribute evenly. Time management is observed with only a slight variation to the 8-minute time limit (10% under or over).	Delivery is conversational but hesitant or overly reliant on reading slides. Division of labor may feel unbalanced. Time management is poor (significantly under or over time).	Delivery is unprofessional, incoherent, or completely unprepared. One partner dominates entirely, or the pair fails to present. Significant time violation.

Assessment Task 3

Short Exercises

Notate weekly tutorial activities in Sibelius or Muse Score software. Include a brief reflection of 200 words on key takeaways from each exercise regarding composition and voicing/scoring techniques.

DUE OCTOBER 21, 2026 (via Canvas)

 

Assessment #3, Exercise #1:

Create a solo line around the harmonic progression of a 12 or 16 bar blues. Consider technical considerations of flute or oboe.

 

Assessment #3, Exercise #2:

Working in pairs and modelled on the form of Ulpirra for clarinet, create a solo line for a clarinet or saxophone using repetition of motif.

 

Assessment #3, Exercise #3:

Using geometrical and/or geographical shapes in conjunction with modes, create a 12-16 bar solo line for a brass instrument of your choice. 

 

Assessment #3, Exercise #4:

Working in a group of 4, create a chord progression and re-arrange it to explore inversions, drones and register using melodic percussion instruments.

 

Assessment #3, Exercise #5:

Working in the same group of 4, use a selected version of last week’s chord progression and utilise some of Reich’s composition strategies to create rhythmic interest. Assessment submission:

·     Music score (in PDF only – do not submit a file from a notation program) AND journal response (merged into one document). Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 1].pdf

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 2].pdf

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 3].pdf

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 4].pdf

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 5].pdf

 

Computer generated audio file (in MP3). Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 1].mp3 

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 2].mp3 

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 3].mp3 

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 4].mp3 

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 3]_[Exercise 5].mp3 

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Experimental Technique & Risk-Taking (40%)	Actively pushes creative boundaries. Displays an exceptional willingness to step outside comfort zones, aggressively experimenting with unconventional scoring, unique voicings, or novel composition techniques.	Successfully steps outside comfort zones with clear attempts at unconventional scoring, unique voicings, or novel composition techniques, though with slightly less aggressive experimentation than an HD.	Exercises are solid and well-constructed but lean toward safer choices. Showxs some engagement with new techniques, though execution remains largely conventional.	Follows the baseline requirements of the exercises but strictly avoids taking creative risks. Relies entirely on conventional, predictable, or safe compositional choices.	Repetitive or risk-averse. Fails to explore new technical or compositional ground; relies entirely on safe, familiar clichés.
Notation using Sibelius or MuseScore (30%)	Portfolio is flawlessly and consistently completed each week in Sibelius/ MuseScore. Notation is highly accurate, utilizing advanced software features to cleanly communicate complex or experimental ideas.	Portfolio is consistently completed each week in Sibelius/ MuseScore. Notation is highly accurate and clean, though it may not leverage advanced software features as deeply as an HD.	Portfolio is mostly complete. Basic notation is accurate, though some weekly entries show minor engraving errors or unrefined layout choices.	Portfolio meets the bare minimum completion requirements. Notation contains noticeable layout or engraving flaws, showing only basic software competency	Portfolio is incomplete or missing weeks. Entry notation is chaotic, mathematically incorrect, or shows poor software mastery.
Critical Reflection (30%)   ~200 words per exercise	Reflection is deeply analytical, providing highly sophisticated insights into composition, voicing, and scoring choices. Directly, critically, and honestly evaluates what worked, what failed, and why.	Reflection is strongly analytical rather than descriptive, offering clear insights into voicing and scoring choices, with a solid evaluation of successes and failures. Meets the word count.	Reflection is beginning to show analysis but remains primarily descriptive. Mentions voicing and scoring choices, focusing more on what was done rather than deeply evaluating the technical takeaways.	Reflection is surface-level and entirely descriptive. It simply lists the steps taken without analyzing the craft, and may fall noticeably short of the word requirement.	Reflection is missing, severely under the word count, or entirely superficial, offering no meaningful insight into the craft.

Assessment Task 4

Composition for Small Ensemble

Compose a 4-5min work for a small ensemble, either woodwind quartet/quintet, brass quartet/quintet, or saxophone quartet. Utilise compositional and scoring techniques explored in class and via Assessment #3. Material in this composition may stem from exercises completed in Assessment #3 but should demonstrate clear development and extension of ideas.

 

DRAFT: To be discussed during 1-to-1 session in Week 11. Timetable TBA.

Performance review (with live musicians): Week 13

Final score Submission: November 10, 2026 (via Canvas)

 

Your submission is to include the following items, merged into a single PDF document:

·     Title page

·     Program notes (max. 250 words)

·     Score

·     Individual parts (provided in score order)

 

In addition, submit:

·     Computer generated audio file (mp3 file format)

 

The score must include:

·     Title

·     Composer name

·     Instrument

·     Expressive markings

·     Tempo markings

·     Bar numbers

 

Assessment submission (via Canvas):

·     Music score (in PDF only – do not submit a file from a notation program). Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 4]_[NAME OF PIECE].pdf

 

·     Computer generated audio file (in MP3). Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]_[MUSI2229 ASSESSMENT 4]_[NAME OF PIECE].mp3 

Assessment Criteria

• Development & Extension of Ideas (30%)
• Scoring & Voicing Techniques (30%)
• Instrumental Capability & Approach (20%)
• Professional Notation & Presentation (20%)

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Development & Extension of Ideas (30%)	Exceptional thematic and structural development. If utilizing material from Assessment #3, the ideas are profoundly transformed and expanded into a mature, cohesive 4-5 minute architecture.	Strong, clear development of musical ideas. The piece establishes a convincing formal structure and avoids stagnation, showing a successful expansion of initial concepts.	The piece establishes a clear formal structure, though the development of concepts leans toward safer, more conventional expansions.	Structural development is present but predictable or uneven. The piece may rely on literal repetition, or the connection to prior sketches feels pasted together rather than organically grown.	Lacks structural development or coherent form. The work is either extremely repetitive, fragmented, or fails to meet the 4-5 minute duration requirement.
Scoring & Voicing Techniques (30%)	Masterful application of classroom scoring concepts. Voicings are perfectly balanced across the ensemble, showcasing a sophisticated grasp of texture, acoustic registration, and timbral blending.	Skillful orchestration and voicing. The arrangement is well-balanced across the selected quartet/quintet, showing a strong understanding of how to distribute weight.	The orchestration remains well-balanced across the ensemble, though it leans toward safer distributions of harmonic and melodic weight.	The scoring is functional but safe or unadventurous. Some passages suffer from balance issues, muddy textures, or an over-reliance on standard chorale-style block writing.	Poor or ineffective scoring. Voicings ignore acoustic realities, resulting in a constantly muddy, thin, or poorly balanced ensemble texture.
Instrumental Capability & Approach (20%)	Writing is highly idiomatic and expertly tailored to the specific capabilities of the chosen ensemble. Flawlessly respects ranges, breathing requirements, and articulation limits.	Writing is highly playable and well-suited to the instruments. Shows clear consideration of registers and physical constraints with only minor moments of logistical awkwardness.	Writing is playable and displays clear consideration of the instruments' mechanics, though it stays within highly comfortable and conventional boundaries.	The piece is playable but conventional. Contains passages that are unnecessarily awkward for the players or slightly misunderstand the mechanics of the chosen instruments.	Writing is unplayable or unidiomatic (e.g., out of range, impossible leaps, ignoring breath control or physical realities of the instruments).
Professional Notation & Presentation (20%)	Executive-ready PDF score following professional publishing standards. Engraving, dynamics, and articulations leave zero ambiguity. Audio file is cleanly rendered and perfectly mixed.	Score layout is highly organized with minor spacing issues. Performance directions are clear. Audio mockup is accurate, balanced, and clearly mixed.	Score layout is organized, though minor spacing issues or unrefined layout choices are slightly more noticeable. Audio is accurate and balanced.	Layout is functional but messy (e.g., colliding text, poor system spacing). Audio mockup is provided but uses poor samples, is poorly mixed, or has digital glitches.	Files are missing, incorrectly formatted, or chaotic. Score is disorganized and unreadable; audio is corrupted or missing.

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.

This will be used for all exegesis or exegeses.

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.

Please provide music scores for all musical works with sounding examples (live or electronic) to lecturer. 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 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. Any use of artificial intelligence must be properly referenced. Failure to properly cite use of Generative AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity.

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 Accessibility 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 supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students