Commissioned Strategic Projects - Office for Learning and Teaching

2012
Commissioned Strategic Projects
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Information and Instructions
Topic 2: Professionalisation of the Academic Workforce
Project
Version 1.3
Closing date: Friday 25 May 2012
Office for Learning and Teaching

Contents
1 INFORMATION AND ELIGIBILITY ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Office for Learning and Teaching ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 Strategic Commissioned Work ................................................................................................ 1
2 COMMISSIONED PROJECT – PROFESSIONALISATION OF THE ACADEMIC WORKFORCE ................ 2
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Context .................................................................................................................................... 2
3 THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Building upon existing work funded by the OLT and its predecessor bodies ......................... 3
3.2 Project Deliverables ................................................................................................................ 4
4 ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROPOSAL ............................................................................................ 5
4.1 Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................................ 5
5 OPERATIONAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 6
5.1 Funding Agreement ................................................................................................................ 6
5.2 Payment of Grant .................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Performance ........................................................................................................................... 7
5.4 Supporting Information .......................................................................................................... 7
5.5 Reporting and Accountability ................................................................................................. 7
5.6 Dissemination ......................................................................................................................... 8
5.7 Reference Groups and Project Advice/Support ...................................................................... 8
5.8 Intellectual Property ............................................................................................................... 9
5.9 Publication ............................................................................................................................ 10
5.10 Privacy and Confidential Information ................................................................................... 10
6 APPLICATION INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................... 12
6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 12
6.2 Eligibility ................................................................................................................................ 12
6.3 Funding ................................................................................................................................. 12
6.4 Project Duration .................................................................................................................... 12
6.5 Timelines ............................................................................................................................... 12
6.6 Project Leaders and Project Teams ....................................................................................... 13
6.7 Collaborative Projects ........................................................................................................... 13
6.8 Single Institution Projects ..................................................................................................... 13

6.9 Financials ............................................................................................................................... 14
6.10 Lodgement and Processing ................................................................................................... 15
6.11 Proposal Format and Inclusions ............................................................................................ 16
6.12 Closing Date .......................................................................................................................... 16
6.13 Problems in Submitting an Application on the grants portal ............................................... 17
7 APPENDIX 1: INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE GRANTS PORTAL ................................................... 18
7.1 Accessing the Online Grants Portal ....................................................................................... 18
7.2 OLT Grants Portal Login ........................................................................................................ 18
7.3 Application Form Information .............................................................................................. 19
7.4 Contact details form ............................................................................................................. 21
7.5 Attachments sent through the Grants Portal ....................................................................... 21
8 APPENDIX 2: APPLICATION CHECKLIST ......................................................................................... 22
9 APPENDIX 3 EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS ........................................................................................... 23

1 INFORMATION AND ELIGIBILITY
The purpose of this document is to set out the requirements for proposals for commissioned work for
Topic 2 –Professionalisation of the Academic Workforce.
1.1 The Office for Learning and Teaching
The Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) in the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and
Research and Tertiary Education (the Department) promotes and supports change in higher education
institutions for the enhancement of learning and teaching through the Grants, Fellowships, Awards
programs and commissioned work.
These grants are paid under the Promoting Excellence in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
(PELTHE) Program under Part 2 – Other Grants of the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
The aim of the Grants programs is to provide funding for academics and professional staff to
investigate, develop and implement innovations in learning and teaching. Grants facilitate scholarship
and research into learning and teaching, and promote systemic change in the sector. They play an
important role in providing esteem for learning and teaching scholarship and practice.
The Fellowships program advances learning and teaching in higher education by supporting a group of
leading educators to undertake strategic, high-profile activities in areas of importance to the sector.
Through their fellowship activities, Fellows have a positive and lasting influence and impact on higher
education practice in Australia. Fellowship selection is based on individuals’ demonstrated leadership
capacity in higher education.
The Australian Awards for University Teaching are designed to recognise quality teaching practice and
outstanding contributions to student learning. It is intended that recipients, with the support of their
institutions, will contribute to systemic change in learning and teaching through ongoing knowledge
sharing and dissemination, for example, presentations within the learning and teaching community,
collegial mentoring, pairing and networking, and involvement in university and higher education
committees.
1.2 Strategic Commissioned Work
The OLT occasionally commissions strategic projects in response to key issues in the Australian higher
education sector with the guidance of OLT’s Strategic Advisory Committee.
As these are larger strategic projects of national interest, we would anticipate proposals for funding of
$220,000 and above.
The OLT may award one or more grants to address a strategic topic.
1

2 COMMISSIONED PROJECT – PROFESSIONALISATION OF
THE ACADEMIC WORKFORCE
2.1 Introduction
The demand driven system of higher education has created a new playing field with a record intake of
new students in 2012 as caps are removed on government-funded places. Further, the Government is
seeking to increase the percentage of 25 to 34-year-olds with a bachelor degree to 40 per cent by
2025.
The significant growth in higher education means it is more important than ever for Australia to
maintain its national and international reputation for delivering high quality higher education. Greater
consideration is now required regarding ways to achieve effective teaching to a more diverse and
significantly larger student cohort which go beyond considering online delivery as the most viable
option. Additionally, maintaining the competitiveness of Australia’s higher education sector and
attractiveness to international students will rely increasingly on its reputation for academic integrity
and its ability to deliver a positive student experience.
As the increasing diversity of the student body is matched by an increasing diversity of staff,
universities need to take these factors into consideration as they induct and prepare the academic
workforce for the diversity of their student bodies.
2.2 Context
To enable effective learning by students to prepare them for the economy of the twenty-first century
all academics, but particularly those in teaching intensive positions, need to embrace the new digital
age. This requires an altered approach and commensurate capacity building in relation to content, to
assessment and to pedagogy.
3 THE PROJECT
The outcomes of this commissioned work are intended:
to articulate and embed within its processes what constitutes a clear understanding of
effective teaching
to provide some benchmarks for recognising and embedding effective teaching
to inspire and encourage those working in universities to be effective teachers
to align excellence in teaching with excellence in research; to 'eliminate the need to talk about
a nexus' 1
to demonstrate developmental pathways for academics who are also teachers, and for
teachers wishing to pursue careers as academics
to provide support for sessional and casual staff who increasingly make up the bulk of
undergraduate teaching.
1 Bennett, D. 2010, personal correspondence
2

3.1 Building upon existing work funded by the OLT and its
predecessor bodies
There is a considerable body of work funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)
and more broadly, either completed or underway, which can support and complement this next phase
of higher education teaching development. Projects have developed systems and resources for peer
review and have examined the impact of teaching awards. Other projects have devised methods for
evaluating the effectiveness of teaching development programs, including tertiary teaching programs,
and have distilled principles for successful leadership of sustainable improvement in learning and
teaching. The teaching practices of award winners and teaching fellows are a rich source of case
studies and exemplars. These have not yet been collected and analysed in any systematic way.
The final report should include:
a summative evaluation, describing excellent teaching practice, and what constitutes
successful teaching and how these capacities might be developed in new and experienced
academics
literature reviews, which provide an international context about what constitutes effective
kinds of teaching.
case studies of:
- award winners and teaching fellows, including students' comments and evaluation data
(available from the nomination documents) about effective teaching; 2 particularly in
differing teaching and learning environments such as workplace learning, Web 2.0
environments or online
- early career academics nominated by award winners or fellows, to obtain a mix of
established and new practitioners’ experiences about effective teaching in contemporary
higher education
- teachers who have demonstrated pedagogical diversity in their teaching of students from
diverse backgrounds, including rural and remote, low SES, Indigenous and non-English
speaking.
A possible framework for the case studies, based on the teaching awards criteria, follows:
1. approaches to teaching, supervision and assessment that likely influence, motivate and inspire
students to learn the knowledge intended through their courses
2. development of curricula and resources that reflect current and comprehensive accounts of the
discipline or field of what is to be learnt
3. the enactment of curricula and use of resources that directly assist students experiencing of the
knowledge of the discipline or field that is to be learnt
4. the selection and use of teaching strategies and pedagogies that are well aligned to enrich
students’ learning and are appropriate to specific individual/cohort needs including equity groups
such as Indigenous students and students from a low SES
5. approaches to assessment and feedback that foster independent and interdependence in learning
6. orientations and approaches to teaching that respect and support for the development of
students as individuals
7. engagement in scholarly activities that have influenced and enhanced learning and teaching
experiences.
2 permission to review and publish material from nominations would have to be obtained from recipients and institutions as
ALTC/OLT does not own the IP in these documents.
3

3.2 Project Deliverables
There should be at least three high level outcomes for the project.
1. A final report targeted at those in the learning and teaching community who could utilise the
report as a reference and framework. The final report should follow the structure mentioned
above of a summative evaluation, a literature review and case studies.
2. A high level summary which utilises ‘layperson’ terminology and is suitable for a variety of
audiences.
3. Easily accessible resources to assist in developing and disseminating good practice and should
be suitable for a range of academic teachers including sessional staff, academics on probation,
early-career academics, HR managers and senior executive staff. The resources should be
presented in ways that meet their needs, addresses concerns they are confronting and are
readily accessible for them. These resources should include case studies, presentations,
exemplars, tools, checklists and should be presented as website and multimedia.
A selection of recent and current OLT-funded projects on this topic can be found in Appendix 3.
The full reporting requirements are listed in section 5.5 on page 7.
4

4 ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applications for commissioned work grants will be assessed by the OLT and a panel of experienced
academics with expert knowledge about the proposed project.
The OLT reserves the right to ask for a proposal to be modified and/or re-submitted for decision.
Please note in assessing the proposal, the information may be shared with other Commonwealth
agencies, organisations and individuals, including those you identify in the proposals to substantiate
any claims or statements that you make, to verify the capacity of your organisation to manage
Commonwealth funds and for general comments on the viability of your proposed project.
4.1 Assessment Criteria
Applications for funding for Commissioned Strategic Projects should demonstrate the following:
Project Outcomes and Rationale
Clearly articulated outcomes and a clear argument demonstrating how the project will contribute to
the outcomes as stated in Section 3.
Approach
A strong theoretical framework that is grounded in the literature
A set of strategies which is considered, coherent and appropriate to the outcomes the project
is designed to achieve
An approach that is in general alignment with the commitments of the OLT
Alignment between plans for the dissemination/embedding of the successful strategies and
outcomes and the project design.
Value/Need for Project
Potential usefulness of the project and its outcomes to any of the following:
the sector as a whole
the development of national approaches or policies related to learning and teaching in higher
education.
Ways in which the project both utilises and advances existing national policies or knowledge relevant
to excellence in teaching.
Project Management
Budget
A thorough approach to project management, including a preliminary allocation of
responsibilities among the team members.
The quality and timeliness of the project leader’s previous OLT work may be taken into
account when considering applications for funding.
A budget justification that is appropriate to the project outcomes and importance.
5

5 OPERATIONAL INFORMATION
5.1 Funding Agreement
Lead institutions will be required to enter into an agreement with the Department managed by the
OLT. If there is any inconsistency between the agreement and these instructions, the terms of the
agreement will prevail. Where a proposal from a consortium is approved, the OLT will enter into an
agreement with the lead institution only.
The conditions of the grant will be specified in the agreement. The agreement will specify:
the outcomes of the project to be achieved
the payment arrangements
conditions of the grant including financial and performance reporting requirements
requirements regarding variation to the agreement
acquittal of grants and
other related issues.
The funding agreement will be for a period of twelve months.
The initial grant payment must occur by end June in the year for which the grant was approved.
If a project is designed to go beyond 12 months the funding for the out years will be given provisional
approval only. Should a project not be progressing well or the recipient institution request noncontinuance,
the OLT can determine not to fund any extension or negotiate a new agreement with a
different institution for completion of the project.
A model funding agreement is available on the OLT Commissioned Projects section of the OLT website.
5.2 Payment of Grant
The funding agreement will contain the information on payment instalments linked to agreed project
stages and deliverables.
Payments will be made via UniPay, the Department’s internal payments portal. Payments will be made
to the account officially designated by the institution and the OLT will not consider any requests to pay
into alternate bank accounts. Payments in UniPay are made on a twice-monthly basis as per the
Department’s standard grants payment process. The payment will be identified as a separate line
item in the Institution Payment Summary in the Other Grants Category as the Promotion of Excellence
in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education program.
Collaborative Projects
For projects involving a consortium of institutions/organisations, the grant will be paid to the lead
institution (recipient institution) which will be responsible for the management and acquittal of the
funding and the deliverables from the project. When seeking funding for a consortium, care should be
taken to ensure the costs associated with the type of collaboration proposed are adequately
addressed.
6

5.3 Performance
The recipient institution is responsible to the OLT for managing the performance of the project
through the project leader(s). This responsibility is expressed through institutional sign-off on project
proposals, funding agreements and performance reporting.
Should a project leader need to withdraw from the project, written notification should be provided to
the OLT with information on how the project will continue to be supported by the lead institution.
Collaborations, Partnerships and Other Roles
Proposed changes in partner institutions, for example withdrawal or addition of a partner during the
project, must be supported by the DVC (Academic) or equivalent, of the institution/s concerned and
written notification of the change and endorsement be provided to the OLT.
5.4 Supporting Information
Applicants are advised to familiarise themselves with the resources available at the Managing Your
Project webpage on the OLT website, in particular, the document Project Management Information .
5.5 Reporting and Accountability
The grant recipient must deliver outcomes in accordance with the requirements in this document and
a signed funding agreement.
The following reports must be provided as per a signed funding agreement:
Progress Report (must be provided at six months into the agreement)
Final Report and high level summary
Evaluation of the Project
Financial Acquittal Statement.
The grant reporting and deliverables will be subject to confirmation by the OLTprior to entering into a
funding agreement.
The project leader may be asked to present the project findings to the OLT’s Strategic Advisory
Committee or an OLT nominee for feedback, prior to the project completion date.
Institutions are required to provide regular progress reports and a final written report on the conduct
of the project, as specified in the funding agreement. These reports must be signed by the Vice-
Chancellor, or equivalent, or their delegate.
Ongoing evaluation must be included as part of the project in its various stages and be a role of the
reference group. In addition, recipients of grants in excess of $120,000 are required to commission a
formal independent evaluation of the project. This may be funded from the OLT grant and should be
included in the project proposal’s budget.
When a project team is not able to meet the milestones or the date for completion of the project, the
project leader must seek an extension in writing at least two weeks before the due date from the OLT.
Financial Reporting
Funding must be used for the purposes specified in the funding agreement. Financial reporting and
acquittal processes provide assurance of this to the OLT.
7

For projects designed to go beyond twelve months’ duration, a financial statement must be provided
with the specified deliverables at the agreed milestones of the project.
On completion of the project a full financial statement complying with the conditions in the funding
agreement must be provided by the agreed completion date (the date when all reporting and acquittal
of funding should have been finalised).
The financial acquittal should itemise how funds were used during the course of the project and be
signed as true and accurate by the authorised person within the lead institution as specified in the
funding agreement and countersigned by the project leader.
Any funds not expended at the end of the project must be returned to the OLT. The OLT retains the
right to reclaim funds if the recipient institution fails to fulfil the conditions of these instructions or the
funding agreement or where an overpayment has occurred.
Final Project Report
The final report should be comprehensive and document the ways in which the project outcomes have
been achieved. There are two parts in the final report:
1. Part 1 is a report on the study designed to inform stakeholders and other interested parties
about the project. Part 1 will be published and the OLT will allocate an ISSN/ISBN.
2. Part 2 of the report is for OLT internal purposes only and not for publication.
Instructions on inclusions for both parts of the final report are found in the document: Project
Management Information available from the Grants and Projects section on the OLT website.
Project teams are encouraged to consider budgeting for the services of a professional editor for Part 1
of the final report. More information is given in the Project Management Information document.
5.6 Dissemination
In order to improve the wider impact of their project, applicants are advised to familiarise themselves
with the Dissemination resources available at the Dissemination webpage.
The D-Cubed project provides an evidence-based approach to building dissemination into a project.
Other dissemination resources available from this webpage were commissioned by the Australian
Universities Teaching Committee.
5.7 Reference Groups and Project Advice/Support
Advisory Roles
Individuals may take an advisory role or contribute specific expertise which does not require close
involvement in the project. These individuals would not normally be defined as project team
members.
Reference Group
All project teams should appoint a reference group.
The reference group should include some external members who have appropriate expertise to
ensure there is constructive advice on the design, development and ongoing evaluation of the project
8

and to ensure the project has maximum impact within the institution(s) engaged in the project and
more widely.
The OLT reserves the right to appoint a nominee or nominees of the Strategic Advisory Committee to
the reference group.
Remuneration of Advisory or Reference Group Members
The OLT understands that individuals serving in this capacity do so as part of their collegiate
responsibility to the sector and the OLT. Project budgets should cover out-of-pocket expenses only.
The OLT also recognises that there will be occasions when payment for expert advice is appropriate
and necessary. Applicants are advised to contact the OLT prior to the consideration of inclusion in the
budget of fees for advisory or reference group members.
OLT Management
The OLT will also nominate an OLT staff project manager to support and monitor the project.
Non-participating Members
Since there are different levels of experience and expertise in the Australian higher education sector,
funding may be provided to projects to enable ‘non-participating members’ who may not have the
resources to engage fully with the project to join the project as an interested observer. The type of
‘non-participating members’ envisaged are those who wish to learn how to conduct such a project or
plan at a future date to ‘cascade’ the project to their institution.
International Partnerships
International partnerships are encouraged where appropriate. As with other members of consortia,
funding can be shared with international partners for their contribution to the project. This
arrangement must be made through the lead institution, which must be an Australian higher
education institution eligible to apply for a grant under the OLT PELTHE program. International
partners must agree to the conditions imposed in the funding agreement especially in relation to
intellectual property.
5.8 Intellectual Property
Project proposals
The OLT does not claim ownership of any intellectual property in a project proposal which is submitted
to the OLT under any grants program.
All applications become the property of the Department on submission to the OLT to copy, modify or
otherwise deal with information for the purposes of:
assessment and decision-making
verifying the accuracy, consistency and adequacy of the information contained in the
application
the preparation and management of any funding agreement
the administration of OLT grants programs.
9

Project Material
One responsibility of the OLT is the dissemination of good practice in learning and teaching in higher
education. This is best achieved by ensuring that quality project products and findings are available to
the higher education sector for use and further development. To help achieve this aim the following
position in relation to intellectual property will be the default position for the OLT.
Intellectual Property Rights in the Project Material created under a Funding Agreement will vest
immediately in the Commonwealth. The Department, the OLT, the Lead Institution, and the Project
Partners will, as far as possible, provide the Project Material to the sector for use and adaptation using
systems such as Creative Commons, Open Source or other appropriate developments.
The Commonwealth will grant to the recipient a permanent, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive
licence to use, reproduce and adapt the Project Material and to sub-licence any of these rights to
members of a consortium for the purpose of the project that is funded.
Issues associated with existing intellectual property are addressed in the funding agreement.
A different position in relation to copyright and licensing may be considered if there is a strong
argument that the default position explained above is not appropriate to a particular project. This
argument will need to be presented as part of the project proposal and will need to demonstrate that
the approach advocated will ensure that the products and findings of the project are available to the
higher education sector for use and further development.
The grant recipient(s) will be required at all times to indemnify and hold harmless the Commonwealth,
its officers, employees and agents from and against any loss or liability incurred or suffered by any of
those indemnified arising from any claim, suit, demand, action or proceeding by any person in respect
of any infringement, or alleged infringement, of Intellectual Property Rights by the grant recipient(s),
their employees, agents or subcontractors in the course of, or incidental to, carrying out the project or
the use by the Commonwealth of the Project Material.
5.9 Publication
The funding agreement requires reports on the progress of the project and a final report and, where
the funding is over $120,000, a formal evaluation of the project. These reports are referred to under
Reporting and Accountability (Section 5.5).
The OLT’s written approval must be obtained prior to publishing any project reports required under
the funding agreement. This provision does not limit the publishing of academic articles, conference
papers or web materials as part of a project.
The OLT reserves the right to make the first public announcement of successful applications.
5.10 Privacy and Confidential Information
As part of the Commissioned Strategic Projects grant, the OLT may collect personal information
(“personal information” as defined in the Privacy Act 1988). When collecting and otherwise handling
personal information, the OLT is required to comply with the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs)
contained in section 14 of the Privacy Act.
10

In accordance with the IPPs, application forms for this scheme will include details of:
the purposes for which the OLT will collect personal information
how the OLT will use the information
any person, body or agency to whom the OLT may disclose information and for what purpose
for the purposes of this scheme. It is important that all bodies and persons involved in the scheme are
aware of these arrangements.
The Department will not use or disclose your personal information for any other purpose unless
permitted by the Privacy Act 1988.
11

6 APPLICATION INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
The following information is for eligible applicants or institutions who wish to apply for a grant for the
commissioned projects.
6.1 Overview
Applications for a grant is through the submission of a proposal, and the final decision about projects
funded will be based on that proposal.
Applications consist of two parts:
the Application Form
the proposal and associated attachments.
All applications must be made using the Grants Portal which is available on the OLT website.
Applicants should prepare proposals in sufficient time to meet their institution’s deadlines for
institutional endorsement, which will be earlier than the OLT’s closing dates, before finalising their
application and submitting through the online system.
Please allow sufficient time for the preparation of online applications. Applicants are also strongly
advised to use the Applicant Checklist provided in Appendix 2 on page 22 to review the application
prior to submission.
6.2 Eligibility
Under the Australian Government Other Grant Guidelines, institutions listed in Table A and Table B of
the Higher Education Support Act (2003) and other approved higher education providers receiving
places under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme are eligible to apply for grants.
See the OLT website for a complete list of institutions- http://www.olt.gov.au/eligible-institutions.
6.3 Funding
As these are larger strategic projects of national interest we would anticipate proposals for funding of
$220,000 and beyond.
6.4 Project Duration
Twelve months project with a finish date no later than 31 October 2013.
6.5 Timelines
The timeline should assume that the project will begin in 2012 after the funding agreement
administration has been concluded. Projects should be designed to go for approximately 12 months.
Timelines need to recognise the lead-up time required for large projects or those with a number of
partners to develop a shared language and local commitment. Careful consideration should be given
to the number and type of partners and their contribution to ensure the project is manageable.
12

6.6 Project Leaders and Project Teams
The project leader(s) must take significant intellectual responsibility for the proposed project, its
design, conduct and results. This requires a serious time commitment (usually at least 20% of the
leader’s time).
Individuals may not hold the substantive responsibility (e.g. project leader/director/fellow) for more
than two OLT grants concurrently unless the PVC/DVC (Academic) approves a greater commitment
and provides details of how the time will be allocated to enable individuals to carry out their
responsibilities to the projects. While this restriction does not apply to project team members, care
should be taken by individuals not to over commit.
The OLT acknowledges that project leaders and team members will be required to allocate time to the
successful implementation of a project. All project proposals must include a letter from the respective
head of school/department for each team member stipulating support for teaching relief or relief from
normal duties for the team member to participate in the project. Letters of support must be included
whether or not teaching relief or relief from normal duties has been requested from the OLT.
Project teams are encouraged to include one or two early career academics as substantive members
of the project team. All nominated project team members should be in agreement with the proposal
at the time of submission. If it comes to the attention of OLT that nominated team members are not in
agreement or aware of the application, the proposal will be deemed ineligible for that funding round.
6.7 Collaborative Projects
Collaboration between higher education institutions and/or relevant other bodies is encouraged.
Applications from consortia will need to be submitted under a lead institution which must be a higher
education institution eligible to receive a grant under these guidelines. The lead institution must
ensure each named collaborating institution/organisation has agreed to have its name put forward as
a collaborating institution before submitting a project proposal. Failure to ensure the agreement of
named collaborating institutions/organisations may result in the application being deemed ineligible
by the OLT.
The lead institution must be authorised to act on behalf of all members of the consortia or
collaborative group, and enter into agreements which are binding on them. For the purposes of the
application, all consortia members and the lead institution should be clearly identified.
Formal collaborations or partnerships must be acknowledged in documentation regarding the project.
Collaborating institution(s) will contribute substantially to the project, usually through a project team
member. Where partners are not represented on the project team, a clear rationale should be
included in the proposal to explain this absence. To acknowledge this commitment, project proposals
must be endorsed in writing by way of a letter of endorsement from the Vice-Chancellor, or
equivalent, of all collaborating /partner institutions before submission.
6.8 Single Institution Projects
In keeping with the principles of diversity, collaboration and high impact, the principles for funding
single institution projects are:
The issue, idea or approach must be of importance to the higher education sector.
13

The work proposed should be able to be applied within other institutions.
The proposal includes a comprehensive and convincing strategy to ensure outcomes and
project materials take into account different institutional contexts and can be applied in those
different contexts.
A comprehensive plan for dissemination to the relevant audiences: sharing has to be
embedded in the conduct of the project.
Proposals for single institution projects should clearly address these principles in addressing the
Approach and Value/Need for the Project criteria.
6.9 Financials
Budget
The Department requires a budget outline to be included with each proposal.
Please refer to the Budget Template that is available on the OLT website, under Commissioned
Projects.
The required budget sub-headings include:
Personnel:
This should include the salaries, wages and on-costs of personnel who have overall
responsibility for managing and implementing the project. The level of each appointment and
the hours per week (or percentage of time committed) should be specified. On-costs of up to
28% may be included.
Project Support:
This section must be completed, where the purpose of expenditure is logistical. Project
Support includes all non-staff expenditure for the administration and day to day management
of the project, not directly contributing to a specific project outcomes. For example,
management meetings, stationery, travel, consumables.
Project Activities:
This section must be completed where the purpose of expenditure is directly linked to a
project deliverable.
All costs which directly contribute to a specified activity or outcome, including evaluation and
dissemination, should be included here. For example: the hosting of conferences and
workshops, website development and hosting, publications (including production),
dissemination, and project evaluation.
This also includes travel relating to specific activities, and personnel expenses if personnel are
recruited for a specific project activity. For example a facilitator for a workshop, or an
independent evaluator should be budgeted under Project Activities, as should travel to attend
the workshop or to undertake the evaluation.
Administration and Institutional Overhead Levy:
A maximum of 10% may be claimed toward institutional administration and overheads. This
does not include overheads associated with salaries.
Project Resources:
All costs to develop project resources should be included in the budget. Some examples may
include case studies, checklists, online educational tools or websites.
14

Project Evaluation Costs:
All projects provided with funding of greater than $120,000 must commission a formal
independent evaluation of the project. This evaluation should be factored into the budget and
the project timeline.
A resource to assist with planning the Evaluation of Projects is available at the Grants and
Projects section of the OLT website.
Goods and Services Tax
The budget must be in Australian currency and inclusive of GST (as defined in section 195-1 of the A
New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999).
6.10 Lodgement and Processing
The complete proposal should be submitted via the Grants portal.
For more instructions please refer to APPENDIX 1: Instructions for using the Grants Portal.
Accessing the Online Grants Portal
The Grants Portal is available on the OLT website.
Please note that if you have pop-ups blocked on your system, for example by Google Toolbar, this may
limit access to the Application Form. If you experience difficulties with the system, you may need to
allow pop-ups to proceed with your application.
It is highly recommended that you use Mozilla Firefox version 3 or above or Internet Explorer version 7
or above. Internet Explorer 6 is no longer supported.
After Submitting Proposal
Following the submission of an application, a reference number is issued automatically. If for any
reason you do not receive a reference number, please contact us immediately.
Please do not send applications by email.
Receipt of Proposals
Applicants will also receive an email receipt within three business days of submission.
As some systems treat automated mail as SPAM, please check your junk email in the event a receipt is
not received.
All submissions will be acknowledged by email to the nominee and signatory of the institution’s letter
of support. If the nominee does not receive an email within a week after submission, he or she should
contact the OLT by email: < learningandteaching@deewr.gov.au>.
15

6.11 Proposal Format and Inclusions
Proposals should demonstrate that they meet the Assessment Criteria outlined on page 5.
Proposals are limited to 10 A4 pages (including references) and are to be in at least size 11pt font
(exclusive of Application Form and attachments – refer below).
Each application proposal should include the following information:
Abstract (160 words in the online form)
Project Outcomes and Rationale
Value and need for the project
Approach and Dissemination
Project Management including :
- processes and structure underpinning the management of the project
- how the project team will establish a clear vision and goals
- financial management
- staff management
Evaluation strategies
For collaborative projects:
- the type of collaboration
- the project collaborators and their contributions.
If not already included in the proposal, the following supporting documentation should also be
attached:
Project summary of the activities
Project plan and timeline
Project Budget (limit four A4 pages in total)
Proposed resource allocation
Letter(s) of endorsement from the Vice-Chancellor of both the leading and partner
institutions (if applicable)
Letters of endorsement from the respective head of school/department stipulating support
for teaching relief or relief from normal duties to participate in the project
CV including qualifications and experience of the project leader(s) and project team
members. The statement on the project leader/s should include a list of all current projects,
research and fellowships, including the progress of any OLT-funded activities involving the
project leader, and give an estimate of the time that the leader(s) can contribute to the
proposed project
Note the restriction, shown in section 6.6 of this document: Individuals cannot take
substantive responsibility for more than two of learning and teaching grants and fellowships
grants concurrently, without submitting a letter from the PVC/DVC (Academic) approving this
commitment and providing details of how the time will be allocated to enable individuals to
carry out their responsibilities to the projects
List of items excluded from the budget (if applicable).
6.12 Closing Date
All proposals must be received by the closing date: 5pm AEST, Friday 25 May 2012.
Consideration of late applications will be at the discretion of the OLT’s Strategic Advisory Committee.
16

6.13 Problems in Submitting an Application on the grants portal
If you experience a problem in submitting the application through the Grants Portal please contact us
well before the due date.
Contacts
Mail address: GPO Box 9880
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Phone: (02) 6240 0625
Fax: (02) 6267 4499
Email: learningandteaching@deewr.gov.au
Requests for further information should be directed by email to learningandteaching@deewr.gov.au.
Please provide appropriate contact information including the name, institution and phone number of
the person seeking the information.
17

7 APPENDIX 1: INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE GRANTS
PORTAL
7.1 Accessing the Online Grants Portal
All applications must be made using the Grants Portal which is available on the OLT website.
The Application Form is to be completed online directly in the OLT Grants Portal. The proposal, in the
form of a Word or PDF document, will form an attachment to the Application Form.
Applicants should not submit applications through the Grants Portal before obtaining institutional
endorsement for the proposed project from the Vice-Chancellor. Applications submitted in the
absence of institutional endorsement will be deemed ineligible.
7.2 OLT Grants Portal Login
The first view of the OLT Grant Portal (Figure 1) gives you the option to submit a new application, or
resume a previous application.
Figure 1: Grants Portal Login
1. Submitting a new proposal for the first time
If you are commencing a new proposal and have not already been allocated a reference number,
please make sure you have the project leader’s contact details on hand as this is required in order
to save and resume the application at a later date. Mandatory fields are marked with an asterisk.
2. Accessing a DRAFT version of an application that already exists in the system
If you have previously selected the Save Draft option in the application process, you will have
received a reference number and a password. This is unique to your application and must be kept
safe. To resume your application use these details at the Grants Portal Login form.
3. Providing additional information for an application that has already been submitted
If you have already submitted your application but need to provide additional material, you will be
able to add attachments by logging in to your application as if you were resuming it and selecting
the File Submission option.
18

7.3 Application Form Information
The first part of the application form (Figure 2) is for all the grant application details and files. Key
fields in this section include:
Title:
Program:
Partner Institution/s:
Endorsed By:
Program Priority
Area:
Outcomes:
Abstract:
Key Words:
Are you currently
involved in any
projects funded by
OLT?
Does this application
build on a project
funded by a
predecessor body?
All nominated team
members are in
agreement with the
proposal.
Project names should be no more than 15 words long and should clearly
and succinctly describe what the project will be doing.
If the project is based in a discipline or field of study, this information must
be included in the title.
Select the name of the program under which the application is being
submitted, that is: Innovation and Development, Leadership for Excellence
in Learning and Teaching, or Strategic Priority Projects. You will need to
use the drop down list provided.
List other higher education institutions and relevant other bodies who will
be partners in the project. Agreement must already have been obtained
from collaborating institutions and validated with letters of institutional
endorsement from the Vice-Chancellor or equivalent before they are
included here.
Specify the name of the Vice-Chancellor, their equivalent, or delegate
endorsing this application and their position title. This is a mandatory field.
Select the program priority area being addressed by the application. Only
one priority area can be selected.
Provide a succinct outline of what the project has been designed to
achieve (60 word limit). Please write simply and avoid technical jargon.
Summarise the rationale/need for the project and what the project sets
out to address/achieve (160 word limit).
To assist in analysis and web searches please list key descriptors/ search
words (20 word limit).
Select Yes or No. If Yes, please provide details in the text box provided.
Please note that you are required to provide details on the time you can
allocate to the project outlined in the proposal.
Select Yes or No. If Yes, please list the ALTC project reference number and
title in the text box provided. Please refer to section 3.6 of the
instructions in Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Program
and Seed Projects information and Innovation and Development Program
and Seed Projects information at http://www.olt.gov.au/grants-andprojects/programs-and-applications.
For AUTC projects, only the title is
required.
Select Yes or No. Please refer to section 3.5 of the instructions in
Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Program and Seed
Projects information and Innovation and Development Program and Seed
Projects information.
On completing this part of the application, applicants are able to continue by selecting Next step at
the bottom of the screen.
19

Figure 2: Grant detail form (Part 1)
Part 2 of the application form (Figure 3) is for applicants to provide the contact details of key
personnel. Key personnel include Project Leader, Institutional Contact Officer, PEI Leader, and Team
Members. The information required for each contact includes:
Name & Email:
Phone & Fax No:
Address:
Enter the Title, First name, Surname and email address. These are
mandatory fields.
Enter the two-digit area code followed by an eight-digit number
Please include the address in full, including office and building number. If
there are additional postal details, you may add these to the other
contacts such as the Institutional Contact Officer (ICO).
20

7.4 Contact details form
Figure 3: The contact details form (Part 2)
On completing the first two parts of the application form, applicants are able to continue to Part 3,
Terms & Conditions, by selecting Next step at the bottom of the screen.
7.5 Attachments sent through the Grants Portal
Document naming
Before attaching the relevant documents, please note that the files must be named according to the
type, program, institution, applicant and year, that is:
Strategic Priority (SP) Proposals ‘prop.sp.institution.applicant.year’
For example: a proposal submitted to the 2012 Commissioned Strategic Projects(SP) by an applicant
from RMIT University with the surname Smith would be named ‘prop.sp.rmit.smith.12’
If the computing program you use does not support a document name of this length please
abbreviate but retain the elements.
Try to keep your application to one file. If this is not possible you may include up to three files. To
ensure that each file is clearly named as above, please add the section number at the end of the file
name, i.e.: ‘prop.program.institution.applicant.year.section’.
For example: prop.sp.rmit.smith.12.sect1 or prop.sp.rmit.smith.12.sect2.
Moving between pages, printing and amending fields may cause attached files to drop out. Please
check that files are attached before saving to draft or submitting.
Please note you must attach a copy of the full proposal (Word or PDF) in Part 1, Grant Information
of the Grants portal (See Figure 2 above).
21

8 APPENDIX 2: APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Before submitting an application to the OLT, please use the following checklist to review your proposal:
Application form:
Contact details have been provided (Sections 1 and 2)
Institutional endorsement has been provided (Section 3)
Proposal:
The application is written in 11pt font or larger.
Proposal does not exceed 10 pages in length, excluding the application form
The project duration is within the period allowed
Project evaluation is included in the timeline (only applies if funding >$120,000)
Budget:
The budget is within the range specified
Personnel costs include level of appointment and hours per week or % time
Salary on-costs are included (maximum of 28%)
All costs are in whole dollars and exclude GST
The figures listed as totals (sub-totals, stage/year totals, total budget) are correct
The administration levy does not exceed 10% (to calculate, add all sub-totals and multiply
by 10%)
Project Evaluation included in the budget
Assets (e.g. computers, small electronic devices) are NOT included in the budget
Attachments:
All attachments are named according to the instructions at section 7.5
Letters of endorsement are attached from all partner institutions. Institutions cannot be
listed as partners in the absence of letters of endorsement
Letters of support from heads of school are attached regarding requests for teaching relief
or relief from normal duties, even when this does not involve OLT funding. A letter must
be provided from each institution requesting teaching relief or relief from normal duties,
including the lead institution
22

9 APPENDIX 3 EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS
Projects underway:
Measuring and reporting teaching quality
Project leader
Professor Marnie-Hughes Warrington
Institutions
Monash University, The Melbourne University, Griffith University, The Australian National University
The project will deliver resources for senior leaders to use in assessing the efficacy of their institution's
professional development provision and an open-source instrument for measuring the impact of
professional development in education. The project is conducting a systematic review of national and
global approaches to the measurement of teaching quality.
Completion due
Late 2012. The review should be available mid-year.
Identification and implementation of indicators and measures of impact on
teaching preparation programs in higher education
Institutions
The University of Western Australia, Curtin University, Edith Cowan University
Project leader
Winthrop Professor Denise Chalmers
The project will develop a fully trialled and functional framework of indicators and measures of
evaluation and impact for academic professional development activities in Australian universities,
which encompasses the full range of type and purpose of teaching preparation programs and takes
into account context through recognition of learning architectures and enhancement cultures.
Completion due
Late 2012
Social, communicative and interpersonal leadership in the context of peer
review
Project leader
Professor Judyth Sachs
Institutions
Macquarie University, La Trobe University, Lund (Sweden) Pretoria;
By building social and interpersonal leadership capacities at the institutional and individual levels this
project aims to develop the leadership skills required for peer review. The project will also contribute
23

to a fuller understanding of internationalisation in higher education by assessing the extent to which
cultural factors shape the leadership skills needed in peer review. Outcomes will include professional
development, resources and a community of practice for peer review of leaders.
Completion
Mid 2012
Completed projects and fellowship:
Leading sustainable improvement in university teaching and learning: lessons
from the sector
Institutions
Deakin University, Queensland University of Technology, Murdoch University, Swinburne University of
Technology
Drawing on the reflections and learning of leaders and staff in 22 Australian universities, the project
identified seven interlinked insights that are characteristic of sustainable, positive change in teaching
and learning in universities. These insights are that:
Efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning are aligned with the strategic direction of
the university;
Senior executives support teaching and learning enhancement, and resources for those
improvements are allocated as part of the university’s planning and budget cycle;
Staff workload allocations allow time for innovation, enhancement and improvement in teaching
and learning;
Effective institutional leadership proactively manages tensions between discipline research
endeavours and efforts to improve teaching and learning;
Teaching and learning are supported by relevant research and scholarship conducted within the
institution and in collaboration with other institutions and relevant bodies;
A distributed teaching and learning support structure exists within the institution and is
coordinated from the centre; and
Mechanisms to recognise excellence in teaching and learning and to enable teaching and learning
career pathways are in place.
Resources
The summary paper ALTC Promoting Excellence Initiative: major themes identified in completed
institutional project reports, the short guide for university leaders, Seven insights for sustainable
change in teaching and learning in Australian universities, and the project's final report will be
available shortly on the OLT's website.
The key to the door? Teaching awards in Australian higher education
Fellowship report
Winthrop Professor Mark Israel
Within Australia, the national Awards for Teaching Excellence have largely been conceived as an end
or a high point, a way of recognising and rewarding good teaching without placing any expectations
upon the winners. While recipients may be and indeed have been asked to do any manner of things,
they are not required to do so as a condition of the award. Consequently, in the main, neither the
24

administering authority, nor an awardee’s home discipline or university have turned their attention to
what happens next. Some awardees are quite content with this. However, many awardees might
prefer to see receipt of the award as a point when the pace and direction of their career changed.
They want to use the award to open up new opportunities and have more of an impact on the nature
of education in Australia. If that is the case, it may matter that as a sector we have invested
considerable effort in ensuring that excellent teachers get an award but have paid little attention to
what they may get out of an award.
Professor Israel makes a number of recommendations for award winners, institutions and DEEWR
about managing success (or failure) and valuing, supporting and using award winners.
Resources
The report and a short document extracting the recommendations are available at
http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-teaching-awards-higher-ed-uwa-2011
Peer review of teaching for promotion purposes: a project to develop and
implement a pilot program of external peer review of teaching at four Australian
universities
Institutions
The Adelaide University, Wollongong University, The University of New South Wales, Griffith
University
As universities move to develop teaching-only or teaching-focused positions, they also need to
develop processes for the recognition and promotion of academics on the basis of their teaching.
Summative peer review of teaching has the ability to improve the status and the quality of teaching at
tertiary level by encouraging the promotion of exceptional teachers and academics engaged in the
scholarship of teaching at all levels.
This project developed a robust process to foster and acknowledge excellent teaching and learning in
Australian universities, particularly by integration with the promotion process. Grounded in a
thorough review of the literature, processes, protocols and tools were developed for both internal
peer observation of classroom teaching and external peer evaluation of written materials and
documentation. These were trialled in pilot programs over two years, and feedback from participants
was used to modify and refine all documentation. Model session agendas, video clips of classroom
teaching, and sample promotion applications were developed and are available on the project
website.
Resources
The project website Peer Review of Teaching for Promotion Purposes, contains all project resources
Peer review of online teaching and learning
Institutions
University of South Australia, RMIT University, Edith Cowan University, Griffith University, Monash
University, Queensland University of Technology, University of Southern Queensland, University of
Tasmania, The University of Lancaster (UK)
25

Building on extensive work undertaken within Australia and overseas, this project developed an opensource,
web-enabled peer review tool, accompanying user guide and systems documentation and a
series of case studies illustrating the application of the system in both formative and summative
review. The system incorporates an easy-to-use wizard enabling academics to construct banks of
criteria focusing on different areas of learning and teaching, using built-in templates, while also
retaining the option to custom design their own review templates. The supplied templates include
custom reviews for online learning and teaching, face-to-face teaching and blended learning.
Templates are also provided for particular areas of focus including first year experience, embedding
research in the undergraduate curriculum, supporting student diversity, and internationalisation of the
curriculum.
Trials have demonstrated the potential of the instrument in facilitating reflection in action by the
teacher informed by students’ self-reviews and by monitoring how students respond to and act on
that feedback. The instrument has also been adapted as a scaffold for students undertaking courses in
which they are required to make evaluative judgments about their work and the work of their peers.
Resources
The project website, Peer Review of Online Teaching and Learning, includes a preview of the PROTL
system.
Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: resources to support
institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices
Institution
The University of Melbourne
While there is growing interest in the Australian higher education sector, peer review of teaching is
not commonplace and the level of awareness and expertise is variable. This project aimed to
encourage and support greater participation in peer review of teaching through the creation of
resources to assist institutions in effectively implementing policies and programs that embody an
Australian conception of the scholarship of teaching and that aligns with existing national initiatives
for enhancing learning and teaching in higher education.
The project investigated current practices nationally, engaged the higher education community in
discussion of the issue, and developed resources appropriate to the Australian context. With
significant input toward the development of the framework for peer review from staff of 11 Australian
universities, the resources accommodate the diversity of institutions, local environments and
purposes, rather than providing a standard approach to peer review of teaching.
Outputs include a comprehensive handbook designed to support institutions in the development and
embedding of programs of peer review. It presents a set of core principles defining peer review of
teaching in the Australian context, while supporting diverse university contexts and approaches.
Resources
The final report Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: Resources to support
institution in developing and embedding effective policies and practices and handbook Peer review of
teaching in Australian higher education: A handbook to support institutions in developing and
26

embedding effective policies and practices are available at http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-peer-review-ofteaching-melbourne-2009
Other relevant material
Revitalising the academic workforce
ALTC Good practice report. Southwell, D. 2011. Available at http://www.olt.gov.au/resourcelibrary/good-practice-reports.
The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) provided awards, grants and fellowships
programs, the establishment and mobilisation of existing networks and communities and leadership
and expertise to enhance and to advocate for learning and teaching in Australian universities from
2005 until 2011. These have stimulated a noticeable engagement of academic staff in enhancing
teaching and learning in higher education, from the local and institutional level to the discipline and
national level.
Revitalising the academic workforce to enhance the teaching and learning in Australian universities
will require more than this. This report provides an overview of matters associated with the current
and anticipated future academic workforce in Australian higher education. Information is drawn from
a review of key national reports, government statistics and the literature, and an analysis of the
projects in relation to five key topics is presented. Areas of strength and opportunities for initiatives
are identified.
The second part of the report is summary of 65 completed and continuing ALTC projects and
fellowships grouped under the key topics: the academic workforce; recruitment and induction of
academics for teaching; high quality professional development for formal leaders; academic teaching
evaluation and recognition; and engaging academics in education reform.
‘The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context’ (2010) Higher
Education Research & Development 29 (2), 111-124.
Marcia Devlin and Gayani Samarawickrema (Deakin University)
The criteria of effective teaching in higher education are understood to comprise particular skills and
practices applied within particular contacts. Drawing on the literature and using Australia's
understanding go effective teaching, this paper examines the notion of the effective teaching. The
paper specifically compares dimensions derived from robust research and psychometric processes
with the Australian Learning and Teaching Council's criteria for effective teaching and observes the
criteria of effective teaching in higher education to have evolved. While the paper suggests some
areas in which future considerations of the notions of effective teaching might usefully focus, it also
argues that context is critical and that it is subject to continuous and multiple changes imposed by
forces from within and outside universities. The paper maintains that our collective understanding of
competent, professional and effective teaching must continually evolve in order that it accurately
reflects and continually responds to the contexts in which learning and teaching is undertaken. The
paper also calls for an ongoing agenda that continuously investigates and articulates the meaning of
effecting teaching in a changed, and changing, context.
27

Inspiring academics
Iain Hay, editor
https://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?cat=108&isbn=0335237428
This book draws on the experience and expertise of award-winning university teachers to illuminate
exemplary teaching practice. It is structured around five core themes, based on the national teaching
awards selection criteria: inspiring learning, command of the field, assessment for independent
learning, student development, and scholarship.
Contributors include Gerlese Åkerlind, Ian Cameron, Lisa Emerson (NZ), Sally Kift, Iain Hay, Mick
Healey (UK), Carl Wieman (US) and many others.
28