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.

Research-Led Teaching

Lecturer teaches from the core material of his research, as well as concepts and techniques required of the craft of composition.

Field Trips

Nil

Recommended Resources

These do not have to be purchased as are in library and/or section. Yet it is recommended that students purchase the Black and Gerou text on Orchestration, plus one of the following music textbooks.

Reading Lists:

* Copious set listening examples, copious set score excerpts as presented in lecture sessions.

* Relevant Orchestration and Composition texts (Lovelock, Keenan, Solomon, Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mancini, Stiller, Blatter, Black& Gerou, Hindson & Blom, others)

* Paul Griffiths Modern Music and After (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)

* Robert P. Morgan (ed) Anthology of Twentieth-century Music (New York: WW Norton and Company Inc, 1992).

*Arnold Whittall Musical Composition in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

 

Note: Students are encouraged to source their own relevant examples. Others will be distributed as per need. 

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	Writing for Choir
2	Writing Back-up Vocals; and Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)
3	String Quartet – tonal era
4	String quartet – post-tonal era; and Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)
5	Writing for Guitar
6	Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)	Assessment 1 due in week 6
7	Collaborations with other artists and art forms
8	Writing for Scratch Orchestra, Community or Student Groups; and Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)
9	Writing for String Orchestra; and Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)
10	Music Publishing as a Composer; and Works in Progress session - presentations; and Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)
11	Works in Progress session - presentations; Listening, Analysis, Modelling Practice (LAMP)
12	Henri Dutilleux and other composers in focus: staying with your own voice	Assessments 2 and 3 due in week 13.
13

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
Orchestration Book	25 %	30/10/2026	1, 3
Analysis	20 %	*	1, 3, 4
Orchestration Exercise	20 %	04/09/2026	1, 2, 3, 4
Orchestration Project	35 %	15/11/2026	1, 2, 3

* 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.

Examination(s)

N/A

Assessment Task 1

Orchestration Book

Students create their own orchestration book throughout the course based on the instrument families studied. Notes are made using templates regarding range, special considerations, blending options, timbral qualities and scoring samples.

 

While documenting accurate physical facts (ranges, transpositions) is a prerequisite, high marks in this assessment are awarded for your personalized, composer-led observations. Your journal should actively connect what you hear to how you intend to write. We want to see a clear link between an instrument’s physical/timbral reality and your own creative agency—demonstrating how you might exploit specific registers, mechanical quirks, or blending characteristics to fulfill a variety of distinct compositional intentions.

 

DUE DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2026

 

Your submission:

Using the template provided in Appendix A, submit 16 personalised orchestration templates in one singular, combined PDF document for the following instruments:

1.    Piccolo

2.    Flute

3.    Oboe

4.    Clarinet

5.    Bass Clarinet

6.    Alto Saxophone

7.    Tenor Saxophone

8.    Baritone Saxophone

9.    Trumpet

10.  French Horn

11.  Trombone

12.  Tuba

13.  Violin

14.  Viola

15.  Violincello

16.  Double Bass

To help guide your reflections away from passive summaries and toward active composition engineering, apply this two-step model to every instrument you observe:

 

1. The Personalised Observation: What does this register/technique actually sound and feel like to you? (Ignore the textbook—use your own vocabulary: glassy, brittle, claustrophobic, grounding, clinical, muscular).
2. The Compositional Intent: How can you exploit that specific quality? If you want to create tension without changing the volume, how does this instrument help you? If you need a texture to sound vulnerable versus aggressive, which register or mechanical limitation will you deliberately lean into?

 

Example:

• Limited response (Textbook clone): "The lowest notes of the flute are quiet and breathy. It can play down to C4."
• Personalised response (Composer-led): "The flute’s lowest fifth ( to ) has a fragile, breathy, and hollow quality that lacks projection. Compositional Intent: Rather than forcing it to play a melody over a dense accompaniment, I would use this register in a completely solo, unmetered texture to evoke a sense of isolation or vulnerability."

 

Assessment submission (via Canvas):

·     PDF document of all orchestration templates, merged into one singular document.

Use the following file name template:

[YOUR SURNAME]-[STUDENT #]-[MUSI2229 ORCHESTRATION ASSESSMENT 1].pdf

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Personalised Timbral Observation (40%)	Exceptional, personalised qualitative descriptions of timbre across all registers. Demonstrates active, critical individual listening. Avoids textbook clichés; articulates highly specific detail with unique clarity.	Strong, highly expressive descriptions of timbral qualities. Demonstrates individuality and looks beyond standard definitions including timbral changes across registers.	Solid, clear descriptions of timbral qualities. Shows some individual listening observations, though portions remain conventional or rely slightly on standard definitions.	Descriptions are mostly generic or heavily reliant on textbook definitions (e.g., "warm low register, piercing high register"). Individual listening observations are sparse or superficial.	Descriptions are missing, inaccurate, or entirely absent. No evidence of individual listening or personalised timbral analysis.
Application to Compositional Intent (30%)	Explicit connections are made between the instrument's acoustic profile and compositional possibilities. Student articulates considered strategies for exploiting instrument capability to achieve specific dramatic, structural, or emotional outcomes.	Student expresses clear, effective connections between timbral observations and creative application. Outlines viable ideas for how to use the instrument's unique traits to serve a variety of musical goals or structural roles.	Identifies straightforward connections between observations and creative applications, though the musical goals or structural strategies remain safe and conventional.	Connections to composition are vague, safe, or superficial (e.g., "I would use this register to write a sad melody"). Relies on predictable clichés rather than specific tactical strategies.	Fails to link observations to compositional intent. Treats the template as a passive fact sheet with no reflection on how to use the instrument as a creator.
Capabilities, Limitations & Physics (20%)	Meticulous detailing of the physical, mechanical, and technical realities of the instruments (e.g., breath control, valve/slide agility, bowing/ tonguing physics) and how these limitations can be creatively managed.	Observations display a solid grasp of instrument capabilities and standard limitations. Correctly identifies major technical hurdles and performance realities.	Identifies standard capabilities and constraints accurately, showing a basic awareness of technical performance realities with only minor gaps in detail.	Identifies basic capabilities and constraints but lacks depth. May miss crucial mechanical realities (like register break transitions or fingering awkwardness) that directly affect practical orchestration.	Misunderstands or completely omits instrument limitations, leading to a fundamentally flawed, unplayable, or unidiomatic understanding of the mechanics.
Factual Accuracy & Professionalism (10%)	100% accurate recording of standard ranges, transpositions, and dynamic envelope profiles. Musical terminology is used with professional precision; template formatting is pristine and complete.	Score layout and data are highly organized with a clean, complete template. Minor factual errors may occur in highly specific register extremes or transpositions, but overall templates are reliable.	Template is complete and orderly. Contains a few minor factual errors regarding specific transpositions or extremes, but formatting remains functional.	Contains multiple factual errors regarding ranges, keys, or transpositions. Template is functional but shows rushed formatting or missing sub-sections.	Pervasive factual errors. Inaccurate ranges or transpositions that would render future orchestration exercises unplayable; heavily incomplete submission.

Assessment Task 2

Analysis

For this assessment, you will deliver a 10-minute presentation analyzing an assigned chamber score (one movement from one of the works detailed below). Your presentation must demonstrate how the overall structure of the piece (its form) is supported, highlighted, or changed by the way the composer voices their harmonic language.

 

Instead of writing a long essay, you need to explain these concepts clearly using visual score examples on your slides. Your score excerpts must be clearly marked to show exactly how the composer uses Juxtaposition, Interlocking, and Enclosure to guide the listener's ear.

 

DUE SEPTEMBER 29-OCTOBER 6, 2026

 

SELECTED WORKS:

Pastorale and Caprice for flute trio by Sally Greenaway (2021)

https://www.sallygreenaway.com.au/catalogue/work/pastorale-and-caprice/pastoralecaprice

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7aHm4CdzdQ&list=PLP943NXbAdfN9wtCRGpGTle-QfeR_mvlY

 

Scenes for saxophone quartet from Romeo and Juliet by Matthew Hindson (2016)

https://www.fabermusic.com/music/scenes-from-romeo-/score

 

https://open.spotify.com/track/1WYPIhZgpZjzuhiQdZbqTn?si=13148b7c74f74f84

 

Little Suite for Wind Trio by Margaret Sutherland (1960)

https://youtu.be/gzyMhxoMiGc?si=5zoGtSKwWC2E1QfZ

Concertino da Camera by Peggy Glanville-Hicks (1950)

https://youtu.be/uPhkZZwUjXg?si=2zuSbHujJtUA0Zwk

 

Three Folksongs for Brass Quintet by David Stanhope (1978)

https://youtu.be/aq2JnYtdSb0?si=9Lpva8ZWe5_3CWhV

 

Presentation Guide (minimum 5 slides):

To make sure you fit everything into your 10-minute time limit, organize your slides using this basic structure:

·      Slide 1: Piece Structure & Form Overview: Map out the formal timeline of your excerpt (e.g., Ternary form, Binary form, or block structures). Introduce the main themes and key changes.

·      Slide 2: Case Study – Juxtaposition: Show a marked-up score snippet where instrument sections are cleanly stacked or separated by timbre. Explain how this visual grouping shapes the structure of the music.

·      Slide 3: Case Study – Interlocking: Show a close-up chord sequence where different instrument families alternate or cross lines on the staff. Explain how this affects the overall blend and tuning of the chord.

·      Slide 4: Case Study – Enclosure: Isolate a passage where one instrument family completely "sandwiches" a different instrument color inside. Detail how the composer uses this outer shell to hide or highlight inner countermelodies.

·      Slide 5: Creative Takeaway: A short closing slide. Summarize how these chord spacing strategies dictate the form of the piece, and explain how you plan to use these exact techniques in your own upcoming composition.

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Formal & Structural Analysis (30%)	Thorough analysis of defined structural components, linked to orchestration technique.	Clearly explains the formal divisions of the work. Successfully links structural changes directly to the composer's instrumentation with very few gaps.	Identifies formal blocks clearly and links them to orchestration, though some sections rely on standard descriptive mapping rather than deep analytical connection.	Identifies basic formal structural components, but treats form and orchestration as separate issues. The presentation is overly descriptive, sounding like a basic list of events.	Fails to outline a clear formal structure. The presentation completely misinterprets or ignores the structural layout of the piece.
Chord Scoring Analysis (30%) • Juxtaposition • Interlocking • Enclosure	High-level analysis of all three techniques. Uses exact musical vocabulary to describe how register limits, chord voicing, and timbral blending are managed across the score.	Accurately finds and analyses all three scoring techniques. Clearly explains how these choices shape the ensemble's overall blend and resonance.	Identifies all three scoring techniques with reliable accuracy, though the analysis of their structural impact on blend and spacing remains simplistic.	Finds some instances of the three scoring techniques but analyses them lightly. Confuses techniques (e.g., labelling basic unison doubling as interlocking) or leaves one technique out.	Completely fails to identify or analyse the three scoring techniques. Shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic voice distribution.
Slide Design & Score Graphics (20%)	Slides are immaculate, clean, and professional. Score excerpts are perfectly cropped, high-resolution, and brilliantly marked up with arrows or colour-coding to instantly prove your points.	Clear, organised slide design. Meets the 5-slide minimum. Visual examples and score clips are easy to read, properly labelled, and clearly support the information being conveyed.	Meets the 5-slide minimum. Slides are orderly and legible, though score excerpts or markings may lack refined cropping and layout precision.	Slides are complete but cluttered, blurry, or packed with too much text. Score excerpts are uncropped or hard to read, forcing the viewer to hunt for bar numbers.	Fewer than 5 slides submitted, or the slides are messy, unreadable, and completely lack actual musical scores or visual evidence.
Delivery & Time Management (20%)	Highly professional, clear, and perfectly paced delivery. Hits the 10-minute mark precisely without rushing. Spoken points sync perfectly with slide changes.	Clear, engaging presentation. Speaks confidently using accurate musical terms. Finishes +/- 1 minute of the 10-minute limit with good overall pacing.	Presenter speaks clearly using appropriate musical terms, maintaining a mostly stable pace that finishes within a reasonable proximity of the time target (15%).	Delivery is conversational but relies heavily on reading notes or slides word-for-word. Pacing is uneven, finishing significantly under-time or slightly over time (more than 15%).	Completely unpaced, reorganised, or unprepared. Runs way over the 10-minute time limit, or fails to deliver the verbal presentation entirely.

Assessment Task 3

Orchestration Exercise

Prepare 2 x 16 bar orchestrations for two small ensembles, one homogenous, one mixed, using brass and woodwind instruments. Orchestrations must be notated using music notation software with a score and individual parts prepared for each orchestration. Use 16 bars from one of the “Four Romantic Choruses” by Colin Brumby (1983).

 

Colin Brumby’s Four Romantic Choruses (1983) are written for SATB a cappella choir. Musically, they reflect his definitive return to a highly communicative, lyrical, and tonal harmonic language. His choral style emphasizes elegant voice-leading, rich diatonic progressions, clear phrasing, and careful dynamic pacing.

 

When mapping standard SATB vocal ranges to small woodwind or brass groups, students need ensembles that preserve this rich chordal blend while offering either uniform tone or clear, contrasting layers.

 

Homogenous ensembles may include:

·     Flute, Clarinet or saxophone quartets

·     Brass quartet (trumpet 1, 2, trombone, tuba) or (trumpet, horn, trombone, tuba)

 

Mixed ensembles may include any combination of the following:

·     Flute

·     Clarinet

·     Bass Clarinet

·     Alto, Tenor, Baritone Saxophone

·     Trumpet

·     French horn

·     Trombone

·     Tuba

Draft score due: Week 5

Performance review (with live musicians): Week 6

Final score submission: September 4, 2026

 

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

·     Title page

·     Score

·     Individual parts (provided in score order)

 

In addition, submit:

·     Computer generated audio file (mp3 file format)

 

The score must include:

·     Title

·     Composer name, Arranger name

·     Instrumentation

·     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]-[STUDENT #]-[MUSI2229 ORCHESTRATION ASSESSMENT 3].pdf

 

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

[          YOUR SURNAME]-[STUDENT #]-[MUSI2229 ORCHESTRATION ASSESSMENT 3].mp3 

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Instrumentation & Scoring Technique (25%)	100% accurate ranges and transpositions. Writing is highly idiomatic, respecting physical realities (breathing, agility) of wind and brass.	Mostly accurate transpositions. Safe, functional range use. Minor idiomatic oversights that do not hinder performance.	Solid technical foundation. Contains minor transposition errors or slightly awkward registral placement.	Notable transposition errors or un-idiomatic writing (e.g., lack of breath space, unplayable speeds in extreme ranges).	Critical transposition errors render the score unplayable. Instrument ranges systematically ignored.
Texture, Colour, & Contrast (25%)	Homogeneous setting blends flawlessly. Mixed setting displays sophisticated colour mixing and clear foreground/ background delineation.	Strong contrast between settings. Balanced voices with clear structural intent, though colour choices lean conventional.	Faithful choral translation, but settings lack stark conceptual contrast. Minor acoustic balance issues present.	Literal, block-score translation of choral original. Severe acoustic balance issues mask structural lines.	Total lack of texture or colour awareness. Ensembles sound identical, or severe imbalances muddy the music.
Notation & Score Layout (25%)	Professional, publication-grade layout. Perfect system ordering, bracket groupings, page turns, and spatial optimis ation.	Highly legible with standard conventions followed. Only minor aesthetic issues (e.g., slight dynamic/slur collisions).	Neat, but relies on default software settings. Occasional missing brackets, poor spacing, or inconsistent bar numbering.	Readable but flawed. Cluttered formatting, incorrect stem directions in multi-voice layers, or hidden system errors.	Cluttered, illegible, or structurally incorrect score layout that completely disregards orchestral scoring conventions.
Part Preparation (25%)	Fully optimised for performance: correct transpositions, explicit dynamics/ articulations, smart page turns, and cues (where /if needed).	Rehearsal-ready parts with clear dynamics. Minor, non-disruptive issues with spacing or rehearsal markings and/or placement of other text related directions.	Functional but basic parts. Missed opportunities for helpful cues during rests; minor score-to-part discrepancies.	Major formatting issues (e.g., excessive multi-measure rests without cues, text collisions, or mid-phrase page turns).	Unusable or missing parts. Pervasive transposition errors, or complete lack of dynamic/ articulation markings.

Assessment Task 4

Orchestration Project

Create an orchestration of a work of your choice (to be approved by course lecturer) of 3-4 minutes, for the same combination of instrumental and/or vocal timbres studied in the analysis assessment.

 

DRAFT #1: To be discussed during 1-to-1 session in Week 10. Timetable TBA.

PERFORMANCE REVIEW (with live musicians): NOVEMBER 5, 2026

FINAL SUBMISSION DUE NOVEMBER 15, 2026

 

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

·     Title page

·     Score

·     Individual parts (provided in score order)

 

In addition, submit:

·     Computer generated audio file (mp3 file format)

 

The score must include:

·     Title

·     Composer name, Arranger name

·     Instrumentation

·     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]-[STUDENT #]-[MUSI2229 ORCHESTRATION ASSESSMENT 4].pdf

 

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

[          YOUR SURNAME]-[STUDENT #]-[MUSI2229 ORCHESTRATION ASSESSMENT 4].mp3 

Rubric

	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Instrumentation & Scoring Technique (25%)	100% accurate ranges and transpositions. Writing is highly idiomatic, respecting physical realities (breathing, agility) of wind and brass.	Mostly accurate transpositions. Safe, functional range use. Minor idiomatic oversights that do not hinder performance.	Solid technical foundation. Contains minor transposition errors or slightly awkward registral placement.	Notable transposition errors or un-idiomatic writing (e.g., lack of breath space, unplayable speeds in extreme ranges).	Critical transposition errors render the score unplayable. Instrument ranges systematically ignored.
Texture, Colour, & Contrast (25%)	Homogeneous setting blends flawlessly. Mixed setting displays sophisticated colour mixing and clear foreground/ background delineation.	Strong contrast between settings. Balanced voices with clear structural intent, though colour choices lean conventional.	Faithful choral translation, but settings lack stark conceptual contrast. Minor acoustic balance issues present.	Literal, block-score translation of choral original. Severe acoustic balance issues mask structural lines.	Total lack of texture or colour awareness. Ensembles sound identical, or severe imbalances muddy the music.
Notation & Score Layout (25%)	Professional, publication-grade layout. Perfect system ordering, bracket groupings, page turns, and spatial optimis ation.	Highly legible with standard conventions followed. Only minor aesthetic issues (e.g., slight dynamic/slur collisions).	Neat, but relies on default software settings. Occasional missing brackets, poor spacing, or inconsistent bar numbering.	Readable but flawed. Cluttered formatting, incorrect stem directions in multi-voice layers, or hidden system errors.	Cluttered, illegible, or structurally incorrect score layout that completely disregards orchestral scoring conventions.
Part Preparation (25%)	Fully optimised for performance: correct transpositions, explicit dynamics/ articulations, smart page turns, and cues (where /if needed).	Rehearsal-ready parts with clear dynamics. Minor, non-disruptive issues with spacing or rehearsal markings and/or placement of other text related directions.	Functional but basic parts. Missed opportunities for helpful cues during rests; minor score-to-part discrepancies.	Major formatting issues (e.g., excessive multi-measure rests without cues, text collisions, or mid-phrase page turns).	Unusable or missing parts. Pervasive transposition errors, or complete lack of dynamic/ articulation markings.

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 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.

Returning Assignments

Scores will be handed back in class and/or workshop sessions. Students who are not in attendance may collect them from lecturer in Office Consultation hours.

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