Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Purpose of Document
The Smart Learning Refresh Plan has been written for the Senior Executive, Smart Learning Executive, Smart
Learning Advisory Committee and Smart Learning Working Groups. The Smart Learning Refresh name is to
signal changes to Smart Learning based on feedback from initial course teams and will not likely be needed
once the refresh process is established. Elements of this plan can be edited for wider dissemination with
approval of Smart Learning Executive. Section headings are:













What is Smart Learning and Smart Learning Refresh?
Refresh Approach – Scope
Refresh Approach – Graduate Attributes
Refresh Approach – Guiding Statements and Practices
Refresh Approach – Timeframes
Refresh Approach – Technology
Refresh Approach – Communication
Refresh Organisation and Execution
Risks
Benchmarking & External Evaluation
Budget
2020 and Beyond
Appendices A to L
What is Smart Learning and Smart Learning Refresh?
Course Review The courses we offer our students need to be current and engaging. It is CSU policy to review
courses every three to five years. Reviews are reported to the Curriculum Learning & Teaching Committee and
exemptions approved by the same committee.
All courses offered by Australian universities need to align to the Australian Qualifications Framework. All
courses offered by Australian universities generally also show alignment to their professed Graduate
Attributes (see Appendix A for CSU’s Graduate Attributes Policy). All courses with professional accreditation
also need to align to standards set by the professional body.
Most Australian universities have embarked on a substantial whole of university curriculum renewal/
transformation to improve the competitiveness and distinctiveness of their courses. Several have also
established underpinning technologies to support the mapping and analysis of alignment to standards which is
a process that is seen as core to curriculum renewal. Many projects and fellowships funded by Australia’s
Office of Learning and Teaching reinforce that best practice is concrete demonstration of student attainment
of graduate attributes via assessment tasks (Appendix H). These projects also encourage universities to provide
opportunity for students to undertake authentic assessment in order that they can digitally collect and curate
artefacts of achievement of employability standards. (B.Oliver, ALTC Fellow boliver.ning.com)
The CSU approach to course renewal covers:
 course performance
 course design
 course implementation.
Smart Learning supports all three elements, leading to quality courses. In particular it supports course teams in
a collaborative team approach to design involving expertise and workload allocated from Faculties and Divisions:
Course Directors, Associate Deans (Courses), Sub-Deans Learning & Teaching, Educational Designers, and staff
Page 1
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
who support Graduate Learning Outcomes. It also enables better systems and processes to support integrity
of implementation of the approved design at the course and subject level and provides timely feedback about
course and subject performance that can be fed into integrated CSU systems that monitor just-in-time as well
as historical performance. At CSU “quality” is addressed by the following:
 meeting the needs of students
 facilitating student success
 meeting the needs of the professions
 alignment with the CSU Strategic Plan: Teaching and Learning (Subplan)
 alignment with the CSU Distance Education Strategy
 alignment with Australian Qualifications Framework
 warranting CSU’s continued top ranking for graduate employability.
2013 Pre-pilot Courses and 2014 Early Adopting Courses (now called Wave 1) have elicited substantial
feedback on processes, principles, workload and technology associated with the Course Design Process. This
feedback is being used to help refine current processes and systems in the context of a broader suite of curriculum,
learning and teaching initiatives as set out in the CSU and CLT Sub-plan (Appendix J) which have been incorporated
into a modified approach termed Smart Learning Refresh.
Smart Learning Refresh will cement current practice for Course Directors in working with their Faculty
Executive to:
• interpret current course performance, market analytics and market trends
• establish feedback systems and analytics to dynamically evaluate implementation of renewed
courses.
Smart Learning Refresh affirms many previous goals of Smart Learning, for example:
• course renewal is a collaboration of expertise from across the university lead by the Course Director
• learning activities are designed based on educationally sound teaching and learning strategies as
outlined in CSU policies and frameworks
• assessment tasks are criterion-based and designed to be authentic as outlined in CSU policies and
guidelines.
However Smart Learning Refresh also clarifies and simplifies some of the previous goals based on the feedback
received from the 2013 and 2014 course teams. These include the following principles:
 Map to CSU’s Graduate Attributes and professional standards using in the first instance a short set of Course
Learning Outcomes already pre-mapped to Australian Qualifications Framework
 Demonstrate alignment to these standards at course level via capstones, portfolios, internships, or designated
collections of discrete summative assessment tasks
 Map assessment tasks within subjects to elements specified in the CSU Curriculum, Learning & Teaching
Framework and CSU’s full list of Graduate Learning Outcomes with particular attention to Indigenous Cultural
Competency and Academic Literacy & Numeracy
 Lock down assessment tasks as far as practically possible to assure integrity between designed alignment and
delivery; and build out subject design to a point that ensures quality of delivery regardless of mode, cohort or
teaching team
 Provide feedback to course teams about effectiveness of course design through a simplified system of peer review
 Provide continuous feedback to course teams about effectiveness of course implementation using timely student
feedback derived via Blackboard analytics.
Smart Learning Refresh adds a new goal not previously articulated:
• provide feedback systems and analytics for students to chart their achievements relative to the
cohort and in relation to their personal goals.
The second tranche of courses (called Wave 2) are underway in 2015. Wave 1 and 2 courses are listed in
Appendix B alongside their progress through phases of approval. Wave 3 will possibly follow a more expansive
approach based on feedback from Wave 2. Discussion of Wave 3 is in the section on timeframes.
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
Page 2
Refresh Approach – Scope
Smart Learning Refresh will continue Smart Learning taking into account feedback from Early Adopting Course
teams and cognisant that it is in parallel with another significant change in 2015, the roll out of new Learning
Management System, Interact2. Light blue boxes in Figure 1 indicate the scope of the refresh.
Smart Learning Refresh will:

accelerate the mainstreaming of continuous improvement in course design and curriculum renewal
into university educational practice including integration of the original Smart Learning team into the
Division of Student Learning
 roll out a professional development program for all Course Directors about course design ahead of
involvement in Smart Learning
 use Blackboard and Interact2 for development of subjects within courses
 simplify CSU’s Graduate Learning Outcomes and clarify their use in the Smart Learning stage on
integration of standards
 provide for flexible entry and exit into the Smart Learning process.
 develop analytics for evaluation of both course design and implementation
Scope of Smart Learning
Figure 1: Variation in scope
The focus of Smart Learning Refresh is on three of the previous five elements:
1.
2.
3.
Model - alignment to CSU’s new Curriculum, Learning & Teaching Framework and CSU’s revised
Graduate Learning Outcomes
Technology - enhancements to CourseSpace to provide improved reporting and gap analysis for
Course Directors about alignment to that framework; templates in Interact2 (Blackboard) to replace
the previously proposed Smart Learning WorkSpace; solutions to integration of CourseSpace data
with CASIMS and MSI
Analytics – use of analytics from CSU’s Learning Management System, Interact2 (Blackboard), in
conjunction with data from CSU’s course review, cancelling development of the Smart Learning
Analytics module within Workspace.
In Smart Learning Refresh, the elements of “Organisational Design & Process” and “Roles & Personnel” are no
longer as important as other elements because they were thoroughly addressed in the Early Adoption phase.
In part they have become elements of a broader Service Improvement Project about Common Faculty Models.
Reward and recognition of teaching has become the joint responsibility of Human Resources and the Learning
Academy, a new unit in the Division of Student Learning. Separate course approval committees in the faculties
are about to be merged. The only outstanding matters are a review in 2015 of the university course approval
Page 3
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
committee for Smart Learning courses including a review of the Smart Learning Course Approval Policy which
governs that committee as well as a review of Teaching & Learning Policy developed for Smart Learning.
Refresh Approach – Graduate Attributes
A key principle of the Smart Learning design process is considered and demonstrable alignment between
assessment and stated CSU Graduate Attributes, standards specified by professional accreditation bodies and
standards expressed in the Australian Qualifications Framework.
At CSU, our Graduate Attributes (Appendix A) have been spelt out with 85 separate Graduate Learning
Outcomes (GLOs) grouped under seven dimensions: Academic Literacy and Numeracy, Digital Literacy,
Indigenous Cultural Competency, Professional Practice, Global Citizenship, Ethics and Sustainability.
In parallel to Smart Learning in 2014, Senate approved a review of the Graduate Learning Outcomes under the
auspices of a GLO Implementation Steering Committee chaired by Prof Wills.
Feedback from Wave 1 course teams about GLOs revolved around the complexity of aligning to too many
standards at once and lack of tools for assisting gap analysis. Most Course Directors worked outside the Smart
Learning tool in order to visualise and conceptualise during the merging and matching of standards phase.
The Steering Committee has worked on various means of simplifying the number of GLOs and reducing overlap.
However, it also noted that Research and Lifelong Learning were absent from the current seven dimensions.
Discussion about the number and format of the GLOs is still underway. In summary, the feedback from Course
Directors and from analysis of national projects (Appendices G &H) has lead to a point where we can see that
Graduate Learning Outcomes can be framed and demonstrated at two levels: course level and subject level.
Course Learning Outcomes can be demonstrated near the end of the course via assessment methods such as
capstones, internships portfolios.
Since alignment to CSU Graduate Learning Outcomes is a key element of Smart Learning, more support for
embedding GLOs in the curriculum has been provided and it is to be provided earlier in the process as
professional development not just via Smart Learning feedback processes.
Refresh Approach – Guiding Statements and Practices
Following analysis of the feedback from Wave 1 course teams and the wider university community, past
documents on Smart Learning were mined for a list of principles/assumptions/practices (Appendix C). Each has
been discussed and reframed for the context of Smart Learning Refresh. This set of guiding statements and
practices is still open for discussion but provides direction for the Smart Learning team in redesigning Wave 2
processes and scoping/quoting technical enhancements to CourseSpace. Discussion still underway includes the
extent to which assessment is locked down ahead of time; concept of products and sub-products; relationship
to Graduate Attributes; requirement for one technology developed in-house to underpin all processes versus
use of a suite of tools for course design and reporting.
Refresh Approach – Timeframe
The following timelines are proposed for continuation of Smart Learning.
Smart Learning Original
Timeline 2013-2018
2013
2014
Pre-pilots
8 Early Adopting Courses
- Wave 1 Design
- Wave 1 Implementation
Smart Learning Refresh Timeframe
2015-2020
Page 4
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
2015
2016
Year 3 Scale Up – double the
number of courses i.e. 20%
additional courses in each
faculty begin Smart Learning
Additional 20% begin, previous
year’s 20% continue into
implementation phase
20 Wave 1 & Wave 2 Courses
Other identified courses working
through flexible elements of
course review eg Veterinary
Science for Accreditation module
Evaluate Wave 2 to determine
- go ahead or not for Wave 3
- scope of Wave 3 if approved
20 Wave 1 & Wave 2 Courses
Wave 3 if go ahead approved in
2015
Other approved courses working
through alternative flexible
elements of course review
2017
2018
2019
2020
Remaining courses begin,
previous year’s 20% continue
into implementation phase
All CSU’s 600 courses complete
All Course Directors
- lessons learnt from Wave 1 &
2 Course Directors about course
review
- comprehensive professional
development on Course Design
All Courses
- desk audit against Course
Learning Outcomes and CLT
Framework
- teach out courses that are not
meeting new course
performance standards
Evaluate Wave 3 to determine
go ahead and scope for Wave 4
Waves 4 & 5 - remaining courses in order to meet previous target of
top 5 to 10 courses per faculty reaching 80% of CSU students, offset
by number of courses that have already achieved substantial gains
through flexible arrangements and offset by number of courses with
gains through parallel activities with all Course Directors (see final
column)
The following table splits the timeframe into Design and Implementation phases.
Design
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Two Wave 1 Faculty of Education courses approved by SLCLMC
Remaining Wave 1 courses continue Design, aiming for July
SLCLMC approval
Wave 2 courses begin Design, aiming for 2015 approval in a
merged SLCLMC/FCC format.
Wave 2 courses unable to complete Design continue the
process, aiming for 2016 FCC approval (by May at the latest)
Wave 3 (20% of CSU courses) (May 16 to May 17 planning year)
(or May 17 to May 18 if system integration not ready) See SLE
minutes 070515, item 4.1
Wave 4 (20% of CSU courses)
(May 17 to May 18 planning year)
Wave 5 (40% of CSU courses)
Implementation
Wave 1: Faculty of Education courses
Remaining Wave 1 courses, if approved in
2015
Wave 2 Education courses
Other Wave 2 courses, if approved in 2015
Wave 2 courses approved in 2016
Wave 3 courses approved in 2017
(May 18 to May 19 planning year)
2019
Wave 4 courses approved in 2018
2020
Wave 5 courses approved in 2019
Smart Learning Refresh will continue to roll out the course design process in waves with the intent that the
process will become business as usual at CSU. Refresh will continue with the roll out of Wave 1
Implementation and Wave 2 Design in 2015 in order to surface feedback for Wave 3. The scope for Wave 3 and
Wave 4 will be decided after evaluation of 2015 with Wave 1 and Wave 2 Course Directors. Factors to be
considered include:
 effectiveness of CourseSpace enhancements
 take-up of new Interact2 learning design templates
 integration of Interact2 Learning Analytics
 satisfactory integration of CASIMS with CourseSpace and Subject Outlines.
Page 5
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
There has been concern that course reviews are being held up by technology. If the development of
underpinning technology continues to delay course design and or review then alternative tools to CourseSpace
will be considered for 2016. Alternatively, the design process and the tool could be decoupled until the tool is
suitably developed so as not to hold up design.
Smart Learning’s original goal was to cover in three years, to 2018, the courses that reach 80% of CSU students.
Previous analysis of CSU’s course profile indicated that 83 courses cover 80% of CSU enrolments (67 courses
cover 80% of CSU EFTSL’s). It was calculated that only five to ten courses in each faculty would be needed to
reach this target. Smart Learning specifically targets undergraduate courses and professional entry courses.
Smart Learning Refresh goal will cover the same scaling up of courses with a completion date of 2020. Faculties
negotiate their needs, timelines and pathways in and through Smart Learning. Final decisions, including
exemptions, are governed by a committee process outlined in Appendix C, Smart Learning Course Design and
Review Processes. There have been delays in original Smart Learning timelines caused by caution in some
Faculties about the number of courses selected for entry into Smart Learning and by the need to take stock and
refresh our approach. Smart Learning was due to complete most work by 2018. The timeframe, if we stick to
the original approach, would need to move out to 2020.
Original Smart Learning Approach
Refreshed Smart Learning Approach
- exponential growth towards target in 2018
- parallel activities reaching similar volume in 2020
2020
Wave 5
previous+20%
2018
Wave 4
previous+20%
Wave 3
previous
+20%
Wave
2
+20%
Wave
1
Minor
reviews
All
courses
audit
All CDs
training
All courses
design
templates &
analytics
1
2013
Figure 2: variation to timeframe
However, a number of initiatives are proposed that will help course teams through the process more quickly.
In addition, it is proposed that Smart Learning Refresh establish parallel activities that work with all courses
and all Course Directors rather than focussing solely on an exponential wave approach:
•
•
•
•
•
•
comprehensive program of professional development about course design for Course Directors
regular forums for Wave 1 and 2 Course Directors to present to all Course Directors about progress
desk audits of all courses against CSU’s new Course Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Learning &
Teaching Framework
learning design templates and Learning Analytics in i2 for all courses to use rather than waiting for
movement through Smart Learning
reduce number of courses offered by teaching out courses that do not meet new Course Performance
Standards
Faculty Executive discussion and decision about whether well performing courses need to undergo a
major or minor Smart Learning course review.
Page 6
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
This proposal is illustrated in Figure 2 highlighting that the volume of work through the years remains similar
but is now comprised of a variety of approaches. It is anticipated that although the Smart Learning Refresh
timeframe requires an extra two years, the final two years will be not be onerous with only implementation
rather than design and implementation to be concluded.
Refresh Approach – Technology
Smart Tools is composed of the CourseSpace (currently version 2), that has course design functionality and the
Workspace that contains student-facing online delivery functionality. Under the Refresh, implementation of
WorkSpace has been put on hold.
The CourseSpace is dependent and supportive of the requirements of the Smart Learning course design
process. Required changes to the Smart Learning course design process will need to be reflected in the
CourseSpace. An analysis of the Smart Learning course design process and related issues with the CourseSpace
is currently underway. A detailed development schedule will then guide changes to the Smart Learning course
design process and CourseSpace including enhanced reporting, gap analysis and visualisation tools. An early
version (v 2.1) is planned to address urgent needs that can be implemented quickly for use during Wave 2.
Subsequent releases are planned to address further issues that will be used for Wave 3 and beyond.
CourseSpace v2.1 will not address the CASIMS (Blackboard/MSI) integration. This will be reserved for
subsequent releases as these are significant enhancements.
The company that CSU has employed for all the technical development work, Anomaly Software, will be
employed to do further changes to the CourseSpace.
Analytics from the CourseSpace will be used in alignment with the CSU Learning Analytics Model (Appendix D)
and integrated where possible in course related reports and dashboards to be developed.
Refresh Approach – Communication
The review of Smart Learning has identified areas for improvement in how Smart Learning has previously
communicated with its stakeholders. The Smart Learning Refresh aims to increase the frequency with which it
communicates with its stakeholders and utilise a broad range of communication mediums to provide open,
timely and relevant information, resulting in more people being actively engaged in the Smart Learning
process.
Effective communication is critical to the successful implementation of Smart Learning. The Communications
Plan aims to enable and encourage effective and consistent internal communication in order to keep the
stakeholders informed of, involved in, and committed to Smart Learning. The Communications Plan (Appendix
I) is a living document focused on providing open, timely and relevant communication channels to distribute
key messages that foster ownership and understanding of Smart Learning and establishes roles and
responsibilities for key stakeholders, and the Smart Learning Team with respect to communication.
The Communication Plan outlines the approach and guiding principles to be used for planning communication
activities. Communication activities support stakeholder engagement across the broad sets of groups involved
in Smart Learning including the Sponsors, the Governance Committees, the Smart Learning Team and the
Course Teams actively engaged in developing and implementing Smart Learning. It aims to enable and
encourage effective and consistent internal communication based on the following principles:



Engage in communication strategies that are audience focused, transparent, co-ordinate with other
internal messaging, and provide opportunities for bi-directional communications;
Communicate with staff regularly, and update content accordingly;
Engage with faculties and schools to create a network of communication champions to promote
better internal communication;
Page 7
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)





Provide ease of access to information and build resources for stakeholders to refer to that provide
guidance and bigger picture requirements;
Utilise social network tools as appropriate;
Make use of CSU wide communication services such as What’s New and Yammer;
Foster an environment of open communication and rationale for decisions;
Clarify expectations of stakeholder roles.
Furthermore, the facilitation of stakeholder conversations, commentary and feedback on Smart Learning will
be an essential part of this communication plan and the communication plan will evolve in response to the
effectiveness of activities, situational needs and feedback.
Specific initiatives underway include:
 monthly one to two hour multi-location event called a Conversation, for all Smart Learning Course
Teams
 regular meetings with Faculty Executive
 Smart Learning Update messages from the DVC(A) or nominee.
 Interactions with Course Directors Forum
 Weekly meetings with Course teams and SL Course Directors
 ‘Just in time’ professional development sessions with Wave 2 Course Directors
 Planning meetings with stakeholders in preparation for Wave 3
 Attendance at DVC(A), Faculty and School meetings to inform, update and consult
Refresh Organisation and Execution
Smart Learning Project Team
The original Smart Learning Project Team has transitioned into the operations of the Division of Student
Learning under the leadership of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Student Learning, Professor Sandra Wills and the
Director Learning Design, Associate Professor Elizabeth Thomson.The development of the Smart Learning
software and integration will proceed under the leadership of the Director Learning Technologies, Associate
Professor Philip Uys.
The Organisation Chart in Figure 3 indicates the new direct reporting lines for the Smart Learning team and
includes replacement positions for members who have stepped down. Figure 4 illustrates the project team
structure as it operates in addressing the scope and requirements of the project. The Smart Learning Director
and Smart Learning Project Manager report to the Smart Learning Executive Committee.
Page 8
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
Figure 3: Smart Learning Reporting Structure
Figure 4: Smart Learning Project Team matrix structure
Divisions
Smart Learning and Smart Learning Refresh involves a large number of staff in the Division of Student Learning,
Office for Students and Division of Library Services. Each course team is allocated an Educational Designer who
provide advice and expertise on online learning, learning design, assessment, and constructive alignment.
Professional development on CSU’s Graduate Learning Outcomes has been provided by relevant expertise
from Education for Practice Institute (EFPI), Indigenous Curriculum and Pedagogy and from Academic
Language, Literacy and Numeracy (ALLaN). Additional funding has been provided in 2015 for more support of
the following GLO dimensions: Professional Practice, Indigenous Cultural Competency, Global Citizenship.
Reorganisation of load within Divisions is also covering Digital Literacy, Sustainability, Information and
Research Literacy.
Faculties
Course Directors build course teams around them within their Faculty including professional staff. In 2015
additional funds have been provided to create Faculty Lead Course Director positions.
Governance Structure
Changes to the governance structure have been approved by the Smart Learning Executive Committee (Figure
5).
The revised governance structure consists of a smaller Executive to meet often with decision making authority
and is deemed the Smart Learning Steering Committee; two expanded operational working groups on
Technology and Course Design to also meet often; and the continuation of a broader more representative
group to provide advice on any changes to policy and procedures. The Steering Committee has been renamed
the Smart Learning Advisory Committee. The Course Design Working Group has a dotted line to the Course
Directors Forum and is a standing item on their agenda.
The separate course approval processes established for Smart Learning Early Adopting Courses will be
rescinded and replaced with the process suggested in Appendix C. The Smart Learning course approval
process will be merged from July 2015 with faculty processes to ensure CSU has one course approval pathway.
A review of the university level course approval committee will occur once Wave 2 courses have started to
come through the committee.
Page 9
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
See Appendix E for Terms of Reference of all committees.
Figure 5: Smart Learning Refresh Governance
Risks
Smart Learning’s risks are in the areas of change management, quality assurance and technology. Some
risks identified are a direct result of the Refresh, although most are inherent risk associated with
implementing a significant university wide project.
Whilst the risks identified in the risk register focus on the risk associated with implementing Smart
Learning, it is important to recognise that, once implemented at scale, Smart Learning will significantly
reduce the level of residual risk the University faces in relation to quality assuring our courses and in
relation to providing a positive learning experience for our students.
Benchmarking & Evaluation
There are layers of evaluation surrounding the core of Smart Learning, each layer based around differing
stakeholders (Figure 6). It is important that the project be benchmarked against other similar higher education
projects but also that national stakeholders, such as industry bodies and external accreditors, evaluate the
outputs of the project as indicators of performance and ultimately, success. Each layer may require different
approaches and differing benchmarking and evaluation methods, including decisions about which layers use
internal evaluation and/or external evaluation.
Internal Evaluation
Internal evaluation will guide us in making appropriate adjustments to the project implementation. However,
responsible and responsive governance also requires that there be stages at which the Executive Committee
must use summative evaluation to decide whether to proceed, or whether to proceed at the same pace.
Responsible governance therefore also requires that internal evaluation retains a degree of independence
from core team members. Importantly, Smart Learning is aligned to the Curriculum, Learning and Teaching
Framework and is listed as part of the implementation plan of the Curriculum, Learning and Teaching Sub-plan
of the CSU Strategic Plan 2015-2016 as items A1.1-1.4 (Appendix J).
External Evaluation
External evaluation, which is mainly formative in nature, should guide us in making adjustments in order to
continue with a quality initiative. The aim is to benchmark both the concept and our progress against other
known relevant projects, nationally and internationally. No one external evaluator could provide us with
feedback on all matters. They would be used, according to their expertise, to advise us, as critical friends, on
Page 10
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
individual aspects of Smart Learning. This would include summative feedback from professional accreditation
bodies.
Figure 6: Layers of Evaluation
Evaluation Approach – Engaged Communities of Practice
The evaluation approach proposes that aspects of evaluation, communication, professional learning and
engagement are connected for the purpose of building communities of practice for three different categories
of stakeholders on three key topics related to success of Smart Learning:
Community
Course Directors
Heads of Schools
Associate Deans L&T
Topic
course design
EDRS, promotion processes
course evaluation
Facilitator
Director, Learning Design
Director, Learning Academy
PVC Student Learning
The approach builds on Smart Learning principles of collaboration, team work and peer review to propose
facilitated communities of practice as an engagement of relevance to academic practice. Evaluation then
eventually becomes an activity undertaken by the stakeholders, firmly embedding the standard rule of good
practice evaluation i.e. close the feedback loop by providing results of evaluation back to participants.
International Critical Friends, Evaluators and Benchmarks
It was previously agreed that where possible we would use international expertise for external evaluation as
we do not wish to provide Australian competitors access to an initiative which is potentially CSU’s point of
difference in the Australian market. However this may need to be revisited. Contact with other Australian
universities engaged in significant course renewal and curriculum mapping indicates that there is much we can
learn from each other. The Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) suggested that a Network be established for
this purposes. Appendix G lists universities we have currently has some contact with, other course
design/mapping tools and international Critical Friends.
Budget
CSU allocates approximately $1millon per year to Smart Learning’s salary and non-salary budget. This is A102
(operational) funding from within the DVC Academic portfolio that has been diverted to Smart Learning. The
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
Page 11
budget has been reviewed, with the refreshed organisational structure, to ensure it remains within the
available funding window.
Responding to the feedback received from Wave 1 about increased workload in Faculties and Divisions as a
result of Smart Learning, in 2015 - 2017 Smart Learning will also receive $0.6m A4520 (strategic) funding each
year. This has been allocated to the Division of Student Learning to provide for two additional staff to
support Graduate Learning Outcomes ($0.3m) and to the Faculties to part-fund Faculty Lead Course Directors
($0.3m).
Other workload, of Faculty Course Teams, Educational Designers and GLO support from Library Services and
the Office for Students, will continue to be met from within existing organisational budgets. Whilst this may
be problematic for schools that have not previously included course design into their funding model, the
increased workload associated with a more complete up-front process in the design phase is expected to
level-out in the subsequent implementation phase.
In 2015 Smart Learning has also received $500,000 carry forward of strategic funds from the DVC Academic
portfolio. This is quarantined for software development and integration.
Smart Learning has been costed to 2017. Further consideration of the budget will be required to
accommodate the refreshed timeline to 2020. Beyond 2020 it is expected that the salary and non-salary
budget (provided from operational university funds) will be available to support the Smart Learning course
review, design and performance work as it is integrated into the daily work of Faculties and Divisions.
2020 and Beyond
Smart Learning is a major initiative to reform the way CSU undertakes course review, course design and course
performance. As a start-up initiative, it required an injection of capital. However, from the beginning, the
majority of Smart Learning work has been incorporated into the work of Faculties and Divisions. Therefore, it is
anticipated that beyond 2020 new ways of working and new roles will be entirely mainstreamed into business
as usual.
Smart Learning Refresh Plan
Approved SLE 15/27 (11 June 2015)
Page 12
Appendix A - CSU Graduate Attributes (approved by Senate 12 March 2014 AS 14/14)
CSU Graduate Attributes
Appendix B – Smart Learning Wave Progress
Wave Progress
Appendix C – Refreshed Guiding Statements and Practices
Guiding Statements and Practices
Appendix D – Learning Analytics Model Developed by Learning Analytics Working Party (for
information)
Learning Analytics Model
Appendix E– Terms of Reference for Governance Committees (approved by Smart Learning
Executive on 9 April 2015 SLE 15/07)
Terms of Reference for Governance Committees
Appendix G – National and International Benchmarking (for information)
National and International Benchmarking
Appendix H – National Projects Related to Course Design and Graduate Capabilities (for
information)
National Projects Related to Course Design and Graduate Capabilities
Appendix I - Communications Plan
Communications Plan
Appendix J – Curriculum Learning & Teaching Sub-Plan (approved by University Council 16 April
2015)
CLT Subplan