pdf - Swinburne University of Technology

Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio
February 2008

Page ii
Table of contents
Section Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Vice-Chancellor’s foreword 1
1.2 Scope of the cycle 2 audit 2
1.3 Portfolio structure and content 3
2 Contextual information 5
2.1 Mission and goals 5
2.2 University Council and statutory boards 6
2.3 University management 6
2.4 Campuses 8
2.5 Income and expenditure 8
2.6 Research 9
2.7 Program profile and student load 9
2.8 Staffing 11
3 Activity at Swinburne since the cycle 1 AUQA audit 13
3.1 Action on recommendations included in the cycle 1 audit report 13
3.2 Swinburne’s approach to quality management 14
3.3 Academic governance 16
3.4 Strategic planning and performance reporting 18
3.5 Risk management 20
3.6 Stakeholder feedback processes 21
3.7 Benchmarking 22
3.8 Reviews and audits 23
3.9 Performance planning and development 24
3.10 Compliance with external standards and protocols 25
3.11 Policies and procedures 25
3.12 Research training 26

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio
Table of contents (cont.)
Section Page
4 Professional learning outcomes 27
4.1 Introduction 27
4.2 Program structure, development and accreditation 31
4.3 Widening learning opportunities 35
4.4 Graduate attributes, employability and career skills 38
4.5 ‘Real world’ learning 41
4.6 Pathways to further study 45
4.7 Intersectoral articulation 46
4.8 Infrastructure 50
4.9 Summary of outcomes 52
5 Internationalisation 59
5.1 Introduction 59
5.2 Managing internationalisation 60
5.3 International students studying onshore 62
5.4 Swinburne’s Sarawak Branch Campus 71
5.5 Transnational education (TNE) partnerships 77
5.6 Student mobility programs 80
5.7 Other international collaborations 83
5.8 Internationalisation of the curriculum 88
5.9 Professional development for internationalisation 90
6 Appendices 93
Appendix Table 1 – List of tables 93
Appendix Table 2 – List of figures 95
Appendix Table 3 – List of acronyms 96
Page iii

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Vice-Chancellor’s foreword
At Swinburne, there is as consistent focus on understanding, meeting and, wherever
practicable, exceeding the expectations of students and other stakeholders. This applies
particularly to the University’s ‘core’ activities – education and research – but it extends to all
areas of operation and to all aspects of performance.
It follows that the judgements that matter most about the quality of Swinburne’s performance
are those made by the University’s stakeholders. These include students, graduates and
their employers, industry and community clients, professional accreditation bodies, partner
organisations, and governmental and other funding agencies. Moreover, the judgements they
make are increasingly based on the educational, employment and research outcomes they
derive from their association with the University.
Accordingly, Swinburne’s approach to quality is underpinned by a desire to improve
outcomes for stakeholders on an ongoing basis. This means maintaining awareness of
their current and emerging needs and expectations, planning strategically to meet those
needs and expectations into the future, and allocating resources wisely in order to deliver
on the planning. It also means monitoring and improving performance through a quality
system that incorporates, among other things, extensive stakeholder feedback processes,
regular evidence-based reviews of organisational units, rigorous program accreditation
and reaccreditation processes, benchmarking with high-performing competitors and other
organisations, and effective performance planning and development for staff.
This ADRI (Approach; Deployment; Results; Improvement) model for defining and managing
quality is presently serving the University well. In particular, the drive to improve performance
– that is, to improve outcomes for stakeholders – is fundamental to the University’s vision as
summarised in Statement of Direction 2015 and quantified in Swinburne in 2015.
In this context, the audits conducted for Australian universities by the Australian Universities
Quality Agency (AUQA) have the potential to be invaluable – particularly in view of the cycle
2 focus on outcomes. Certainly, the recommendations and commendations identified in
Swinburne’s cycle 1 (2002) AUQA audit report provided the impetus for a range of initiatives
that have, over subsequent years, contributed to a lift in the University’s performance. The
data presented here evidence this improvement, and should provide the audit panel with a
basis from which to advance useful suggestions for the future.
Ian Young
Further sources
Statement of Direction 2015
www.swinburne.edu.au/
chance/chplans.htm
Swinburne in 2015
www.swinburne.edu.au/chance/
vc/documents/opinionpieces/
Swinburne2015.pdf

Page 2
1.2 Scope of the cycle 2 audit
Swinburne’s cycle 2 AUQA audit will focus on:
w activity since the cycle 1 audit, particularly as it relates to recommendations and
commendations identified in the audit report and to changes in the University’s approach
to quality management
w the exploration of two strategic themes, scoped as follows:
Theme 1 – Professional Learning Outcomes (undergraduate programs)
Course profile, structure and content: design, development and review; graduate attributes;
workplace and real world learning; learning outcomes; assessment design and practice;
recognition of qualifications; professional accreditation; employability & career skills; IT
and teaching infrastructure support; further study; employment outcomes; TAFE to Higher
Education articulation.
Theme 2 – Internationalisation
The teaching and learning experience of international students (undergraduate and
postgraduate) in Australia; teaching and learning experience of international students
offshore; partner arrangements and campuses; student mobility, study tours and exchanges;
internationalisation of the curriculum; overall student experience; international student support
systems; supporting diversity; staff professional development; staffing arrangements and
exchanges; international partnerships for teaching and research; transnational education; QA
and evidence of equivalence
The theme areas were identified and scoped in negotiation between Swinburne and AUQA on
the basis of their relevance to the University’s strategic directions and intended differentiation
within the higher education and research sectors, as noted in Statement of Direction 2015
and Swinburne in 2015 (Section 2.1). In particular, the Professional Learning Outcomes
theme was chosen because of the importance of the innovative Professional Learning Model
developed over recent years for the University’s undergraduate degree programs (Section 4.1),
while the Internationalisation theme was mandated by AUQA on the basis of risk perceived
during the cycle 1 audits across the Australian university sector.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 3
1.3 Portfolio structure and content
Following this Introduction, the portfolio includes Swinburne-specific contextual information
(Section 2), material on the University’s response to the findings of the cycle 1 AUQA audit and
approach to quality management (Section 3), and detailed coverage of the two themes (Sections
4 & 5). The emphasis in the cycle 2 audit will be on outcomes in each theme area, and on the
efficacy of initiatives planned and implemented in connection with these outcomes. However,
while the portfolio has been prepared with this in mind, the sub-headings used in Section 4 –
Professional Learning outcomes and Section 5 – Internationalisation do not correspond directly
to the sub-themes (Table 1.1). This is because of the interrelationship of the sub-themes and a
desire to avoid duplication in presenting relevant data.
The portfolio relies heavily on quantitative data, in keeping with AUQA’s emphasis on
outcomes. Thus, and in line with cycle 2 guidelines, the use of descriptive case studies to
illustrate practice has been avoided. However, each faculty has documented case studies for
each theme, and these are available to the audit panel on request.
Finally, most sub-sections end with ‘priorities for action’. These identify issues to be addressed
in 2008 and 2009, but they do not represent all of the activity planned.
Table 1.1 – Portfolio structure in relation to the themes and sub-themes
Theme And SUb-ThemeS POrTfOLIO SUb-SeCTIOn(S)
Professional Learning outcomes
Course profile, structure and content: design, development and review 2.7; 4.2
Graduate attributes; employability and career skills 4.1; 4.4; 4.9
Workplace and ‘real world’ learning 4.1; 4.4; 4.5
Learning outcomes 3.2; 3.4; 4.1; 4.3 – 4.9
Assessment design and practice 4.5
Recognition of qualifications; professional accreditation 4.2
IT and teaching infrastructure support 4.8
Further study 4.6; 4.9
Employment outcomes 3.2; 4.1; 4.4; 4.5; 4.9
TAFE – Higher Education articulation
Internationalisation
4.7
The teaching and learning experience of international students (undergraduate and postgraduate) in Australia 5.2; 5.3; 5.8
Teaching and learning experience of international students offshore 5.2; 5.4 – 5.6
Transnational education; partner arrangements and campuses 5.1; 5.2; 5.5 – 5.7
Student mobility, study tours and exchanges 5.1; 5.6
Internationalisation of the curriculum 5.1; 5.8; 5.9
Overall student experience 5.1 – 5.5; 5.7; 5.8
International student support systems; supporting diversity 5.2 – 5.5; 5.7; 5.8
Professional development 5.1; 5.9
Staffing arrangements and exchanges 5.1; 5.4 – 5.6; 5.9
International partnerships for teaching and research 5.1; 5.5; 5.7
QA and evidence of equivalence 5.2 – 5.5

Page 4

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 5
2. Contextual information
2.1 Mission and goals
The University was established comparatively recently, with the proclamation of the Swinburne
University of Technology Act (1992). However, the institution has rich history, dating from its
foundation as a technical college in 1908.
Swinburne’s mission (and vision) is to be: engaged with industry and the wider community;
flexible in learning and teaching; and focused in research. Such a future will be defined by the
University’s staff, students and alumni being: intersectoral in their approach; international in
their outlook; and entrepreneurial in their endeavours. Statement of Direction 2015 provides a
more comprehensive summary of this vision.
Key aspects of Statement of Direction 2015 are expanded in a landmark discussion paper
called Swinburne in 2015, prepared via a consultative process led by the Vice-Chancellor
during May – August 2007. This paper sees Swinburne building from existing strengths to
establish a clear, differentiated position in the tertiary education and research sectors, within
Australia and globally. This position is defined by:
w industry-relevant education and training programs across the full spectrum of vocational
and higher education qualification levels, from Certificate I to PhD, with program delivery
characterised by ‘real-world’ experiential learning, flexibility and a commitment to quality
w high-impact research, focussed through leading-edge centres that are responsive to
government and industry priorities
w sustained, mutually-beneficial engagement with industry and the wider community
w an international outlook, with staff and students coming to Swinburne’s Australian
campuses from around the world, as well as working and studying offshore, and
graduates well-prepared for the international workplace
w a commitment to sustainability, manifest externally through practical contributions to
environmental quality, social justice and economic prosperity, and internally through
ongoing performance improvement to build organisational strength
w increased commercial revenue and self-reliance
Importantly, Swinburne in 2015 recognises that the University does not enjoy the privilege
of position enjoyed by many long-established institutions. So, if it is to ‘leap-frog’ these, it
must be focused, outcomes-oriented and innovative. It will also need to be structured and
behave differently, as befits a University whose staff and students are ‘entrepreneurial in their
endeavours’.

Page 6
Further sources
2008–2010 University Plan
www.swinburne.edu.au/
corporate/spq/auqaportfolio/2008-
10universityplan.doc
Swinburne’s 2008–10 University Plan documents specific actions, annual targets,
accountabilities and outcome measures for the 2008–10 triennium. It is structured in terms
of six strategic goals, each contributing directly to the achievement of the aims articulated in
Swinburne in 2015:
w to enhance learning outcomes for Swinburne students
w to improve employment outcomes for Swinburne students
w to strengthen Swinburne’s research position
w to strengthen Swinburne’s domestic profile and market position through effective
external engagement
w to position Swinburne as an international university
w to strengthen client focus through effective business systems
2.2 University Council and statutory boards
The University Council derives its powers from the Swinburne University of Technology Act (1992),
and it is the governing body of the University. The Chair of Council is the University Chancellor, the
titular and ceremonial head of the University. Council delegates authority to the Vice-Chancellor
to be the University’s Chief Executive Officer with responsibility for educational and administrative
affairs. However, Council retains important overarching responsibilities that include:
w approving the University’s mission and strategic directions, and ensuring that long-term
and short-term planning occurs
w approving the University’s business plans and annual budgets, and ensuring financial
viability and systems for financial control
w providing oversight of University management and commercial operations
w monitoring the University’s performance against its strategic goals and objectives
The Academic Board and Board of TAFE Studies oversee the quality of academic programs for
the University’s Higher Education and TAFE sectors, respectively (Section 3.3).
2.3 University management
Swinburne has two teaching divisions (Higher Education and TAFE) supported by four
corporate service areas (Figure 2.1). Each division and corporate area is represented on the
University’s senior management body, the Executive Group. The Higher Education Division, in
turn, comprises six faculties, a branch-campus at Kuching in East Malaysia (Sarawak) and the
Divisional Office.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 7
DVC Academic DVC TAFE
Dean
Learning and Teaching
Higher Education
Six faculties:
� Information and
Communication
Technologies
� Engineering and
Industrial Sciences
� Business and Enterprise
� Design
� Life and Social Sciences
� Swinburne at Lilydale
Sarawak branch campus
Divisional Office
� Swinburne
Professional Learning
Faculty of
Information and
Communication
Technologies (FICT)
Acting Dean:
Associate Professor
Chris Pilgrim
Major sub-entities
Centre for
Astrophysics and
Supercomputing
Centre for
Molecular
Simulation
Centre for
Information
Technology
Research
Faculty of
Engineering
and Industrial
Sciences
Dean: Professor
John Beynon
Executive Director
VET Programs and Services
TAFE
Four schools:
� Arts, Hospitality and
Sciences
� Business
� Engineering
� Social Sciences
Two groups:
� Strategic and Business
Development
� Educational
Development
Swinburne College
Divisional Office
Major sub-entities
Centre for Atom
Optics and Ultrafast
Spectroscopy
Centre for
Micro-Photonics
Centre for
Sustainable
Infrastructure
Industrial Research
Institute Swinburne
(IRIS)
Minifab
Executive Assistant
Ms Sharyn Collins
Faculty of Design
Acting Dean:
Associate Professor
Lyndon Anderson
Major sub-entities
National Institute
of Design
The Design Centre
Swinburne School
of Film and
Television
National Institute
of Design Research
VP Student and
Corporate Services
Student and Corporate
Services
� Student Operations
� Student Services
� IT Services
� Facilities and Services
� Information Services
� Human Resources
� Swinburne Press
� Tertiary Press
Faculty of
Business and
Enterprise
Dean: Professor
David Hayward
Executive Group
PVC International
and Development
International and
Development
Higher Education
� Marketing Services
� Swinburne International
and National Recruitment
� Alumni and
Development
� International
Partnerships and
Quality
� Commercial Services
Refer to Level 1
Deputy Vice Chancellor
Professor Dale Murphy
Major sub-entities
Australian
Graduate School of
Entrepreneurship
Centre for Business,
Work and Ageing
Faculty of Life and
Social Sciences
Dean: Professor
Russell Crawford
Major sub-entities
Institute for Social
Research
Brain Sciences
Institute
Centre for
Psychological
Studies
Australian Centre
for Emerging
Technologies
Centre for
Neuropsychology
Sensory
Neurosciences
Laboratory
Swinburne Research
� Swinburne Knowledge
Other responsibilities:
� Graduate Studies
Figure 2.1 Swinburne’s management and organisational structure
PVC Research
� Supervisor and research
student training
� Grants
� Publications
� Research
communications
� Research performance
analysis
Faculty of Higher
Education Lilydale
Dean: Professor
Kay Lipson
Dean, Learning and Teaching
Professor Margaret Mazzolini
Vice-Chancellor
Chief Financial Officer
Chancellery
� University Secretariat
� Council Secretariat
� Finance
Swinburne
Sarawak
Pro Vice Chancellor:
Sarawak,
Professor Helmut
Lueckenhausen
� Internal Audit
� Swinburne Legal
� Strategic Planning
and Quality
� Media
Swinburne
Professional
Learning

Page 8
2.4 Campuses
Swinburne operates at six campuses distributed across the eastern side of Greater Melbourne
– at Hawthorn and Prahran in Melbourne’s inner east; at Wantirna and Croydon in the outer
east; and at Lilydale and Healesville at the rural fringe. The Higher Education Division operates
at three of these campuses:
w Hawthorn (Faculty of Business & Enterprise; Faculty of Engineering & Industrial
Sciences, Faculty of Life & Social Sciences; and Faculty of Information & Communication
Technologies)
w Lilydale (Faculty of Higher Education at Lilydale)
w Prahran (Faculty of Design)
The Division also operates at the University’s Sarawak branch-campus in Malaysia. At
Sarawak, a range of vocationally-oriented undergraduate degrees is offered – in engineering,
business, IT and multimedia – together with postgraduate research programs at PhD and
masters levels in these disciplines (Section 5.4).
2.5 Income and expenditure
University revenues totalled c. $362M in 2007, with c. 56% of it derived from government
sources (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 – Recurrent income and expenditure, 2007 1
Income/source $A ’000
Government (55.9% of total) 202,296
Non-government (44.1% of total) 159,340
Total recurrent income 361,636
expenditure
Salary & related expenditure (62.3% of total)
Academic 116,001
Non-academic 76,230
Total 192,231
Other (non-salary) expenditure (37.7% of total) 116,449
Total 308,680
Capital expenditure 40,452
1 Figures for 2007 are preliminary, and subject to audit.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 9
2.6 Research
Swinburne is focused and successful in its research effort, principally through 13
well-established research centres. The University is a member of four ARC Centres of
Excellence (Quantum-Atom Optics; Ultrahigh-bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems; Coherent
x-ray Sciences; and Creative Industries & Innovation) and a member of the NHMRC Centre of
Excellence for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research. In 2006, the most recent year for which
official data are available:
w external research income = $32.14k per FTE academic
w publication points = 1.15 per FTE academic
w postgraduate research completions = 95
2.7 Program profile and student load
Each year, the Higher Education Division provides approximately 100 undergraduate programs
and 190 postgraduate programs. The total student load in 2007 was 12,714 EFTSL (Table
2.2), with recent increases largely due to increasing numbers of international students. By
2007, international students constituted 31.2% of the undergraduate load and 61.5% of the
postgraduate load.
Table 2.2 Students (EFTSL) in Higher Education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007
EFTSL students 1
2004 2005 2006 2007
Bachelor degree 7,671 8,057 9,010 9,760
Graduate certificate and diploma 554 451 413 446
Higher degree by coursework 1,503 1,390 1,653 2,041
Higher degree by research 375 457 403 467
Total 10,102 10,355 11,478 12,714
1 Data for 2007 are ‘unofficial’ at this stage, but any changes will be minor. The figures exclude all Open Universities
Australia (OUA) enrolments and non-award program enrolments.
Further sources
Research centres
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/researchcentres.pdf

Page 10
Creative Arts
Engineering
Information Technology
Management and Commerce
Natural and Physical Sciences
Society and Culture
Other
EFTSL
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Some 45% of Higher Education students at Swinburne study science, engineering or
technology programs – a far greater percentage than at any other Australian university – and
similar numbers undertake management/commerce programs following rapid growth in this
field from 2004 (Figure 2.2). This strength in business, science, technology and engineering
is central to the University’s positioning and differentiation in the Australian higher education
sector, as outlined in the 2008–10 University Plan and Swinburne in 2015. Although the
University is sometimes grouped with the ATN universities for comparative purposes, the
Swinburne profile is very different with its strong technology focus and much smaller presence
in education and the social sciences.
2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 2.2 – Changes in student load (EFTSL) by broad field of education, 2004 – 2007

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 11
2.8 Staffing
Staff numbers (FTE) in Higher Education at Swinburne have increased in recent years, with a
6.4% increase in academic staff between 2004 and 2007 and a small decline over the same
period in non-academic staff as a result of out-sourcing some non-core activities (Table 2.3).
Based on the latest Universities Australia data available (for 2005), Swinburne’s student/staff
ratio (19.8 to 1) is comparable to the national average (19.1 to 1).
Table 2.3 – Staff numbers, Higher Education, 2004 – 2007 (FTE) 1
FTE staff
2004 2005 2006 2007
Teaching; teaching & research 514.7 514.0 528.7 545.0
Research only 95.9 91.5 107.7 104.6
Total academic 610.6 605.5 636.3 649.6
Total non-academic 559.8 570.3 557.1 556.4
Total staff 1,170.4 1,175.8 1,193.5 1,206.0
1 Corporate staff are apportioned appropriately across Higher Education and TAFE, but Sarawak staff are excluded.
There has been a significant increase recently in the number of academic staff at Swinburne
with higher degrees (Figure 2.3). This has resulted from a deliberate policy to enhance quality
in teaching and research.
% Academic Staff with a Higher Degree
90
85
80
75
70
65
2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 2.3 – % academic staff with a higher degree at Swinburne,
and at Australian universities (All), 2004 – 2007
Swinburne
All

Page 12

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 13
3. Activity at Swinburne since the cycle 1
AUQA audit
3.1 Action on recommendations included in the cycle 1 audit report
A detailed Progress Report against Cycle 1 Commendations and Recommendations is
available on the AUQA website. However, many cycle 1 recommendations are directly relevant
to the cycle 2 audit, and relevant activity is discussed in the portfolio (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 – Portfolio coverage of activity related to cycle 1 audit recommendations
reCOmmendATIOnS POrTfOLIO SeCTIOnS
2. That, in developing a more systematic approach to external benchmarking, attention be paid to outcome, as well
as input measures.
3. That, as part of the foreshadowed review of course accreditation and re-accreditation procedures, an explicit
review of the current operation and terms of reference of Course Advisory Committees be undertaken. As part of
this review, consideration needs to be given to whether the current operation of the Course Advisory Committees
in accreditation mode allows sufficiently for academic and pedagogic issues to be taken into account in (re)
accreditation decisions.
4. That a review of the Subject Evaluation System be conducted, including a review of the effectiveness of the
mechanisms that exist in academic units for monitoring and action on the results of the subject evaluations, of
the University’s ability to maintain sufficient oversight of the system and the mechanisms that are in place to
provide feedback to students.
5. That, in the development of the Flexible Learning and Teaching Master Plan, further consideration be given to
more specifically linking graduate attributes to the University’s overarching objectives for learning and teaching
and research training, and that the revised attributes statement then be considered by all higher education
schools in the development and review of new courses.
7. That greater consideration be given to the opportunities for research higher degree students from across the
University to interact academically and more informally.
8. That, in developing the Research Master Plan, specific attention be paid to clarifying the linkages between
research and teaching and the ways in which such links can be encouraged for the mutual benefit of activities.
10. That the Library pay explicit attention to the information resources and support needs of students studying
off-shore and institute systems for seeking and responding systematically to feedback from these groups of
students as it has done for its on-campus users.
13. That, in developing the Internationalisation Master Plan, further attention be paid to identifying an agreed
definition of internationalisation at SUT and ensure that this definition is promulgated widely.
14. That Swinburne’s Academic Board resolve, with urgency, the accreditation status of the courses being offered
through Swinburne Sarawak and that the current academic and professional accreditation status of these
courses be made clear to students. More generally, the Academic Board should assure itself that its decisionmaking
processes with regard to all Swinburne’s courses offered off-shore are sufficiently robust.
15. That Swinburne ensure a comprehensive framework for the quality assurance of its courses offered through
Sarawak be implemented without delay. The University has recognised the need for this framework and is in
the process of constructing a suitable action plan.
16. That Swinburne clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of its own staff and staff of off-shore partner
organisations, with respect to responsibility for curriculum development and for quality assurance.
17. That Swinburne establish effective communication mechanisms and ensure that robust QA systems are in place
for its operations with offshore partner organisations within the Swinburne Global Learning Network so that it
has the means to ensure that each partner’s activities (as they relate to Swinburne courses) are fully compliant
with Swinburne policy and practice.
18. Develop an overall framework for quality assurance for Swinburne courses delivered off-shore and ensure that
this process is implemented.
3.2; 3.4; 3.7
4.2
3.6
3.12; 4.1; 4.3; 4.4; 4.6
3.12
3.12
5.4; 5.5
5.1
2.2; 3.3; 4.2; 5.2; 5.4
2.2; 3.2; 3.3; 3.10; 5.2; 5.4
3.2; 5.2; 5.4; 5.5
3.2; 3.3; 5.2; 5.5
Cycle 1 progress report
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/progressreport.pdf
3.2; 3.3; 5.2; 5.4; 5.5
Further sources

Page 14
3.2 Swinburne’s approach to quality management
The specific purpose of Swinburne’s quality management system is to ensure ‘quality’ and
ongoing improvement in all aspects of the University’s performance – especially in the
core activity areas of education, training and research, but also in all facets of planning,
management and operations. With this in mind, recent years have seen the evolution of a
quality management system designed to ensure excellence, with a focus on the outcomes that
matter to stakeholders, without adding layers of bureaucracy. That is, the quality system is
implicit in all of the University’s planning and operations, rather than an “add on”.
The Swinburne approach to quality management – client-centred and characterised by
continuous performance monitoring and improvement – is a practical implementation of an
ADRI (Approach; Deploy; Results; Improvement) model (Figure 3.1).
RESULTS IMPROVEMENT
Our Performance
Stakeholder satisfaction
– Learning outcomes
– Employment outcomes
– Research outcomes
Financial sustainability
Stakeholder
Focus
Students
Employers
Government
Community
Other stakeholders
Our Core Activities
Education
Training
Research
Our Strategy
Leadership
Governance
Planning
Figure 3.1 – Quality@Swinburne
APPROACH DEPLOYMENT
Our People, Facilities
and Systems
Personnel
Campuses
Policies/Procedures
Business Systems

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 15
The quality system is underpinned by a clear set of principles (Table 3.2). These principles are
articulated in the University’s Policy & Procedure on Quality Management.
Table 3.2 – Swinburne’s quality management principles
Quality management at Swinburne should …
1 characterise the management of the University as a whole, and of its constituent units, rather than
operate as a separate construct or second layer of organisational management
2 relate directly to the interests of diverse stakeholders, and to the University’s mission and vision, to
ensure organisational ‘fitness for purpose’
3 involve systematic strategic planning, incorporating effective business planning, informed by
systematic performance monitoring and evaluation
4 focus on outcomes that meet stakeholder expectations and requirements – especially learning and
research outcomes, but also outcomes related to organisational strength and differentiation
5 drive ongoing performance improvement and sustainable growth, with Swinburne evolving as an
externally-focused ‘learning organisation’
6 incorporate sound financial management, and address important areas of risk
7 recognise the professional responsibility of each organisational unit and each individual so that
collaborative responsibility for quality in any area of activity rests with the parties involved
8 apply equally and appropriately to all onshore and offshore operations
9 reduce bureaucracy
The Swinburne approach to quality management is deployed through a set of policies and
procedures designed to drive and facilitate continuous improvement. These include policies
and procedures for:
w strategic planning and performance monitoring/reporting
w gathering and analysing stakeholder feedback, through a suite of cyclic surveys
complemented by ad hoc surveys as required
w service feedback and complaints management
w course development and accreditation
w reviews and audits
w benchmarking
w staff recruitment, induction, and performance planning and development
w policy and procedure review
Many of these policies and procedures have been revised significantly since the cycle 1 audit,
as part of a deliberate strategy to strengthen and re-focus the University’s approach to quality
management. A summary of some of the major changes constitutes the balance of this section
of the portfolio.
Further sources
Quality management policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/quasys/
QualityManagement.htm
Priorities for action
1. Develop and implement strategies
to promote the University’s approach
to quality, with its emphasis on
stakeholder outcomes, within
Swinburne and to client and
partner organisations.

Page 16
Academic Policy and
Planning Committee (APPC)
Responsibilities/Interests:
Matters relating to the planning,
direction and development of
academic programs including:
� policies and procedures relating
to academic programs
� student activities in relation to
academic programs
� relevant administrative issues
3.3 Academic governance
As noted earlier (Section 2.2) the University’s Academic Board oversees the quality of Higher
Education programs. It exercises this responsibility, principally, through:
w the activities of standing committees and working parties
w program accreditation and reaccreditation
w the receipt and consideration of various kinds of performance reports
w communication, as required, with senior management and the University Council –
particularly on matters relating to programs, qualifications, delivery methods, assessment
and research
The Academic Board can, among other things, discuss and submit to Council opinions and
recommendations on any matter relating to the University’s higher education programs,
including such things as qualifications, instruction, discipline, assessment and research.
Currently, the Academic Board has four standing committees with diverse responsibilities and
interests (Figure 3.2).
Academic Programs Quality
Committee (APQC)
Responsibilities/Interests:
Matters relating to the maintenance
and review of academic standards
including:
� policies and procedures relating
to course and unit quality
� teaching quality
� the promotion and validation
of academic standards
� course performance
� assessment
Academic Board
Research Higher Degrees
Committee (RHDC)
Responsibilities/Interests:
Matters relating to higher degrees
by research including:
� review/approval of applications
for candidature
� progress and supervision
of candidates
� variations to conditions
of candidature
� appointment of examiners
� award of higher degrees
� scholarships for postgraduate
research students
� administration of higher degrees
by research
� support for postgraduate
research students
Figure 3.2 – Committee structure of the Academic Board
Higher Education Accreditation
Group (HEAG)
Responsibilities/Interests:
Matters relating to program
accreditation and reaccreditation
including:
� relevant policies and procedures
and compliance with these
� concept proposals for program
development
� program management issues

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 17
During 2007, the Vice-Chancellor presented a discussion paper to Academic Board, aimed
at clarifying the role of the Board in relation to University management and strengthening its
role in academic governance. This triggered a self-review of the Board, led by the Chair, and
thence to significant improvements including:
w annual joint meetings of the Academic Board, Board of TAFE Studies and University
Council (with the first such meeting conducted in 2007)
w establishment of an ex officio position on the Board for the PVC Sarawak
(instituted in 2007)
w receipt and consideration by the Board of regular academic performance reports, prepared
by Strategic Planning and Quality, including time-series data for measures of demand,
load, progression, attrition, student satisfaction, graduate employment and graduate
satisfaction – with data presented by broad field of education and for specific student
cohorts, and with comparative data for other Australian universities (with such reports
instituted in 2007)
w receipt and consideration by the Board of annual research and research training
performance reports (with such reports instituted in 2007)
w receipt and consideration by the Board of annual transnational education (TNE)
quality reports (with such reports to be instituted in 2008)
w receipt and consideration by the Board of annual reports on assessment & appeals
(with such reports to be instituted in 2008)
Priorities for action
2. Clarify the role of the Academic
Programs Quality Committee.
3. Clarify the relationship between
the Academic Board and faculty
academic committees in regard to
academic governance.
4. Strengthen the role of Academic
Board in monitoring academic quality
with respect to the University’s
diverse international activity
(Sections 5.2 – 5.5).

Page 18
Strategic planning policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/quasys/
StrategicPlanning.htm
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Further sources
Higher Education
Plan
3.4 Strategic planning and performance reporting
Following a unit review of the Chancellery (Section 3.8), a simplified strategic planning
framework was adopted early in 2007 (Figure 3.3). It was used for the first time in preparing
the University’s 2008–10 triennial plans.
TAFE Plan
Statement of Direction
University Plan
Student and
Corporate Services
Plan
Figure 3.3 – Swinburne’s strategic planning framework
International and
Development
Plan
Plans of other
corporate units
e.g. Chancellery and
Swinburne Research
Faculty Plans School/Group Plans Unit Plans Unit Plans Unit Plans
Unit and Centre
Plans
Individual
Performance Plans
Department and
Centre Plans
Individual
Performance Plans
Individual
Performance Plans
Individual
Performance Plans
Individual
Performance Plans

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 19
In designing the new framework, the intention was to continue to improve the integration of
planning and quality management (as per Commendation 2 in the University’s cycle 1 audit
report), principally through:
w a stronger focus on stakeholder needs, expectations and outcomes
w greater consistency in setting quantitative annual targets and three-year outcome
measures aligned to the outcomes sought in Swinburne in 2015
w a clearer statement of actions and accountabilities
w more effective alignment between high-level strategic plans, unit plans and individual
performance plans
w increased consultation in planning
w a reduction in the number of plans, to avoid between-plan inconsistencies and to
reduce bureaucracy
Performance reporting
Annual performance reports are prepared by relevant managers against the targets identified
in the plans, with Strategic Planning & Quality preparing a consolidated report against the
University Plan. Reports against all Level 1 plans go to Executive Group for consideration and
approval. As well, a separate report is prepared for Executive Group each year (by Strategic
Planning & Quality) against the three-year outcome measures by which progress towards the
University’s strategic goals is monitored.
Other internal and external performance reports are produced on a regular basis by Strategic
Planning & Quality. These include data, including time series data and comparative data
for other universities, for different performance measures according to the target audience
and purpose. In addition to the statutory reporting required by Commonwealth and State
Government departments, these reports include:
w reports to the University Council and its committees
w reports to Academic Board (Section 3.3)
w reports to senior management
w program level reports for faculties, with data for such things as demand, load, attrition,
progression, student satisfaction, and graduate satisfaction, employment and further study
w reports at program and unit level based on student survey data (Section 3. 6)
w reports to support benchmarking (Section 3.7) and unit reviews (Section 3.8).
These reports are considered within appropriate forums, and there are pathways for followup
action. For example, faculties must prepare, report (to the Academic Board’s Academic
Programs Quality Committee) and implement improvement plans for all units falling in the
‘bottom 10%’ of units, in each broad field of education, for each cycle of the Student Feedback
on Units Survey (Section 3.6). However, in some cases the content of performance reports
needs to change to match Swinburne in 2015 goals and targets, and in others there is a need
to mandate a structured response.
Priorities for action
5. Review policy and procedure in
relation to program level reporting,
to broaden the range of performance
measures reported and to clarify
requirements in terms of follow-up
action (Section 4.2).
6. Review the content and format of
other regular performance reports to
ensure alignment with Swinburne in
2015, and to support the University’s
approach to performance planning
and development (Section 3.9).
7. Build capacity for data-handling
within the University, to improve
evidence-based decision-making.

Page 20
Further sources
Risk Management Framework
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/riskmanagement.
pdf
Risk Management Policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/uniorg/
RiskManagement.htm
Priorities for action
8. Expand the implementation of risk
management workshops to all areas
of the University.
9. Integrate risk management processes
more formally into strategic planning
and compliance processes.
3.5 Risk management
The University is committed to developing an organisational culture that achieves business
objectives while ensuring appropriate management of risk. Thus, it is intended that
Swinburne’s risk management mechanisms provide a sound basis for strategic planning, lead
to better program efficiency and effectiveness, assist in management decision-making and,
ultimately, enhance delivery of services to students and the wider community.
To improve such outcomes, the University commenced a significant enhancement of its risk
management systems during 2006. Reflecting the strengthening focus on risk management,
the Audit Committee of Council became the Audit & Risk Committee, and a comprehensive
review of the existing internal audit function was undertaken by KPMG. This review concluded
that the (former) Internal Audit Unit placed strong emphasis on compliance auditing, but
insufficient focus on assisting the University’s risk management processes.
Subsequently, it was decided to outsource the bulk of the University’s internal audit function to
ensure a service with a much greater focus on risk management. A tender process led to the
appointment of Deloitte as Swinburne’s internal audit provider in June 2007.
Since then, Swinburne’s Risk Management Framework has been revised and the Risk
Management Policy thoroughly reviewed and re-written. Following extensive University-wide
consultation, both were approved in 2007 by the University’s Executive Group, the Audit & Risk
Committee and the University Council.
In addition to these policy developments, risk management workshops were conducted in
2007 for the Executive Group, International & Development Division, Student Operations and
Student Services, and senior staff from other areas will attend similar workshops in 2008.
Each workshop consists of three 3-hour sessions, facilitated by Deloitte, with a focus on risk
identification, evaluation and mitigation. As well as improving the risk management skills of
Swinburne personnel, the workshops add to the breadth and depth of the University’s risk
register which is frequently revised as circumstances change.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 21
3.6 Stakeholder feedback processes
The University implements surveys to:
w understand the needs of stakeholders better
w gather feedback to establish service standards, inform planning, and drive continuous
improvement in teaching, learning, research, services and facilities
w identify problem areas that require detailed follow-up (for example, through focus groups)
to clarify issues and/or identify remedies
Following extensive consultation in 2006, a new Stakeholder Surveys Policy and Procedure
was adopted and deployed in 2007 – principally through a regime of cyclic surveys. Over the
same period, the University began to develop and implement a web-based survey system,
with the aid of LTPF funding. The Student Feedback on Units (SFU) Survey and a program-level
Swinburne Experience Survey (SES) were delivered online for the first time in 2007, with the
former drawing a 38% overall response rate at first implementation. A Student Feedback on
Teaching (SFT) Survey was also introduced in 2007, deployed online at Sarawak and on paper
in Melbourne, with 60% and 43% response rates, respectively.
The mechanism for reporting survey findings was also improved in 2007, in accordance with
Survey Access and Reporting Guidelines endorsed by Academic Board and approved by
Executive Group. As noted earlier (Section 3.4), faculties must lodge formal improvement plans
with the Academic Programs Quality Committee for units with low student satisfaction levels, but
responsibility for considering and acting upon the findings of other surveys needs clarification.
Complaints processes
Swinburne encourages feedback, and mechanisms are in place to handle grievances of
various kinds and more general service feedback. In 2006, responsibility for managing the
latter was moved to Strategic Planning & Quality to ensure independence (and a perception of
independence) and closure of issues.
In 2007, Swinburne was one of nine universities to participate in Universities Australia
benchmarking to assess complaints handling against the Australian standard (AS ISO 10002:
2006). As a result, new strategies are being developed to promote student awareness of
complaints processes and to facilitate the making of complaints, and the Executive Group and
Academic Board will receive annual complaints reports.
Further sources
Stakeholder surveys policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/quasys/
StakeholderSurveys.htm
Access and reporting guidelines
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/surveyguidelines.
pdf
Priorities for action
10. Review the University’s stakeholder
survey strategy to: a) expand the
range of surveys to include a longterm
graduate survey, an improved
employer survey, and customised
versions of the Commencing
Student Survey; and b) to reduce
the risk of over-surveying particular
stakeholder cohorts.
11. Improve communication with
students on the purpose and
importance of surveys, and
particularly on action taken in
response to survey findings – from
2008, improvement actions based
on SFU data will be incorporated
into unit outlines for each delivery
cycle.
12. Further develop the online system
to cater better for SFT surveys and
other surveys targeted to particular
cohorts, with an administration
portlet (within the staff portal) for
faculty representatives to develop
and maintain annual evaluation
plans covering units and teaching
personnel.
13. Improve analysis of qualitative
feedback.
14. Establish a complaints portlet
(within the student portal) to
direct complainants to appropriate
channels.
15. Prepare regular complaint status
reports for Executive Group and
Academic Board.

Page 22
Further sources
Benchmarking policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/quasys/
Benchmarking.htm
Benchmarking summary
www.swinburne.edu.au/
corporate/spq/auqaportfolio/
benchmarkingreport.pdf
Priorities for action
16. Sharpen the strategic focus
of benchmarking activity on
stakeholder outcomes.
17. Review, through Strategic Planning
& Quality, the efficacy of actions
taken on the basis of benchmarking
during 2006 – 2007.
3.7 Benchmarking
Swinburne defines benchmarking as ‘… a structured form of performance comparison
– between organisational units, between organisations, or within organisations over time
– undertaken with a view to performance improvement’. Various forms of benchmarking
contribute to quality management, in accordance with the University’s Policy & Procedure
on Benchmarking.
Benchmarking of inputs, processes and outcomes, particularly with external partners, is used
for many purposes, and it delivers valuable outcomes for stakeholders. Examples include
improvements made to Library operations on the basis of national university benchmarking,
improvements to the University’s international student mobility programs, again on the
basis of national university benchmarking, and improvements to planning processes on the
basis of Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) benchmarking. For this reason,
Swinburne continues to participate regularly in the ACU Benchmarking Program, in European
Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU) benchmarking initiatives, and in diverse national
benchmarking projects.
Summaries of Benchmarking Initiatives are available, with reports and action plans
accessible via links. As well, improvements based on benchmarking that relate to either
professional learning outcomes or internationalisation are described in Sections 4 and 5.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 23
3.8 Reviews and audits
reviews of organisational units
External reviews for all organisational units were instituted in 2005. As indicated in the
University’s Unit Reviews Policy & Procedure, most recently revised in 2007, such reviews
are implemented at least every five years ‘… to assess and improve the performance of
organisational units’. Modelled on the AUQA process of self-review followed by external panel
validation, Swinburne’s unit reviews are:
w designed to complement the routine performance evaluation and ongoing improvement
expected of each organisational unit, and to complement external reviews, audits and
professional accreditations
w constructive in intent, and aimed at improving performance continuously in understanding
and meeting stakeholder needs
w scoped to address areas of strategic importance and risk
To date, unit reviews have been conducted for eight organisational units. A ninth, for the
Faculty of Engineering & Industrial Sciences, is in progress.
Other reviews and audits
Various types of audits and reviews are important in the Swinburne approach to quality
management, with the findings used to build from existing strengths and to drive improvement
in other areas. A Summary of Reviews and Audits is available and, in most cases, the
relevant reports and action plans are also available. As well, specific improvements arising
from review and audit processes in relation to professional learning and internationalisation
are noted in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
Further sources
Unit reviews policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/quasys/
UnitReviews.htm
Reviews and audits summary
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/reviews.pdf
Priorities for action
18. Make more effective use of
performance data in reviews of
organisational units.
19. Ensure that unit review activity
is appropriately aligned with
other audits and professional
accreditations.
20. Implement efficient follow-up to
check that issues identified in
reviews and audits have been
resolved.

Page 24
Priorities for action
21. Develop the new performance
planning and development
system during 2008, following
and in parallel with extensive
staff consultation – this work is
supported by a $2.5M Workplace
Productivity Program grant,
with Ernst & Young as the
implementation partner, and it
may be complemented by a new
University budget model that
rewards organisational units
performing strongly.
3.9 Performance planning and development
Attainment of the Swinburne in 2015 goals will require highly-motivated and highlyperforming
staff. A culture of excellence must be fostered, and for this reason the University
is soon to introduce a new approach to performance planning and development that builds on
exisitng practice. It will apply to all staff, and include:
w negotiated development of individual performance plans with (mostly) auditable,
quantitative performance targets based on such things as stakeholder satisfaction data,
progression rates and research metrics
w regular meetings between staff and their managers to monitor progress and
address issues
w salary bonuses for the best-performed staff (for example, in a particular year highperforming
staff might receive a bonus of up 10%)
w an option for staff to have their bonus paid to a University account to support their
teaching, research or professional development
w use of proprietary software to facilitate the alignment of individual performance plans
with unit plans and the University’s strategic directions, and to ensure secure data flows,
data access and effective reporting
Professional development for all personnel is integral to the approach in this area. Some of
this is directed centrally to ensure strategic alignment, but much is managed at faculty and
corporate unit level for appropriate contextualisation (Section 5.9).

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 25
3.10 Compliance with external standards and protocols
With the adoption by MCEETYA of revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval
Processes in 2006, the University initiated a self-review to ensure full compliance (and
compliance with the National Guidelines) when operation took effect in January 2008.
Swinburne also complies with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS Act)
and the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and
Training to Overseas Students (the National Code), as well as the AVCC Provision of Education
to International Students Code of Practice and Guidelines for Australian Universities
(Sections 5.2 – 5.5).
3.11 Policies and procedures
During 2006, the University embarked on a major review of its Policies and Procedures
Directory to:
w establish a simpler format for policies and procedures, and a more succinct, user-friendly
style of writing
w reduce the number of policies and procedures to gain better integration between related
areas of activity, and reduce duplication and inconsistency
w ensure that policies and procedures are up-to-date and consistent with the National
Protocols and Guidelines and other statutory requirements
w establish a software platform that better supports the incorporation of graphic images into
policies and procedures, and provides improved search functionality
The new Directory software platform was established late in 2007, and the review is ongoing.
To date, the number of policies and procedures has been reduced from 400 to 330, and more
than 50 have undergone major redevelopment using an improved template. Many others have
been appreciably revised.
Priorities for action
22. Clarify responsibility for the regular
review of compliance with important
standards and protocols across the
University.
Further sources
Policies and Procedures Directory
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
registrar/ppd/
Priorities for action
23. Continue the review of the Policies
& Procedures Directory.
24. Establish a structured program
for the (ongoing) cyclic review all
policies and procedures.

Page 26
Priorities for action
25. Establish processes to monitor the
postgraduate research experience
on an ongoing basis.
26. Review examination reports on
Swinburne theses to drive improved
performance and outcomes.
3.12 Research training
Swinburne’s cycle 1 AUQA audit report called for improved processes and outcomes for
postgraduate research students (Recommendation 7), and it was agreed that action in this
area would be included within the scope of the cycle 2 audit.
As a result of the cycle 1 recommendation, the University has developed a new Postgraduate
Research Education Program for students to supplement the training opportunities available
within their respective faculties and research centres. This Program enables them to
participate in discussion sessions on issues that cross disciplinary boundaries, and see their
issues in a wider context. In recent years, the Program has had four components:
w induction into life as a Swinburne research student: relevant policies and procedures;
available services; ethics; intellectual property; financial assistance; and progress,
examination and other aspects of candidature – with participants encouraged to discuss
the respective roles and responsibilities of supervisors, administrators and themselves
w the postgraduate student research experience – the nature of research; planning a
research project; selecting methods; preparing an ethics submission; undertaking
research ethically, effectively and on time; writing up; dealing with examination; and
publishing research outcomes
w communication skills such as reading, note-taking, and written and oral presentation, as
well as stress management
w effective use of Library resources (including Supersearch, the Swinburne library portal)
and advanced approaches to accessing databases
Program sessions vary in duration from 1–3 hrs, and attendance ranges from small working
groups to seminars involving > 40 students. Generally, those in their first year of candidature
account for 55 – 60% of attendees. At the end of each session, participants complete an
anonymous evaluation form – in 2007, 88% of them rated the sessions in the top two
response categories.
Data from the Graduate Careers Australia Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire
(PREQ) indicate that Swinburne postgraduate research students generally have higher
levels of satisfaction with their experience than do postgraduate research students at many
other Australian universities. During 2004 – 2007, mean agreement on the PREQ ‘overall
satisfaction’ item ranged from 83.7% to 95.0% for Swinburne postgraduate research students,
compared with from 83.4% to 84.7% for all Australian universities combined.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 27
4 Professional Learning at Swinburne
4.1 Introduction
Swinburne aims to be recognised ‘…for its flexible approaches to learning and teaching
that create an engaging, stimulating and modern environment in which students can learn
in different ways and in different places to achieve their desired outcomes’ (Statement of
Direction 2015). To achieve such recognition, the University has embarked on an ambitious
curriculum renewal process to provide:
w ‘student-centred learning’ – providing orientation and transition support to incoming
students from diverse backgrounds and cultures, offering flexibility and choice plus
opportunities for accelerated and intersectoral study, and providing professional outcomes
and career skills within a quality-assured teaching framework that includes a mix of faceto-face
and online resources and support
w ‘real world learning’ – experiential approaches to learning, set in an international context
and informed by educational scholarship, industry input and research, to equip graduates
for mainstream and entrepreneurial careers as independent, lifelong learners who
understand social and environmental contexts
This renewal is being undertaken within a five-year Curriculum Framework Project that
commenced in 2005, and it is an example of Swinburne’s ADRI QA model in practice. Relevant
metrics, together with the findings of reviews and surveys, indicated that, while education at
Swinburne was of high quality, graduate employment rates were lower than desirable and the
changing nature of the student cohort necessitated greater flexibility in delivery to maintain
engagement.
The Curriculum Framework Project was developed as a broad-ranging response to address
these and other educational issues. Focused on six curriculum areas (Table 4.1), it covers all
undergraduate programs.
Table 4.1 – Key curriculum areas within Swinburne’s Curriculum Framework Project
CUrrICULUm AreA brOAd ObjeCTIve
Career-oriented learning To improve career skills and employment prospects.
’Real-world’ learning To integrate real-world contexts with theory, through classroom teaching.
Widening learning opportunities To increase flexibility, choice, acceleration and intersectoral opportunities.
Learning for a changing world To internationalise the learning environment and integrate
entrepreneurship and innovation with an awareness of social difference
and cultural diversity into students’ learning opportunities.
Pathways into research To provide research pathways and experience for undergraduates.
Learning to learn To review current teaching practice, program structures, and approaches
to orientation and transition, thus to encourage deep and lifelong learning
and accommodate a range of student backgrounds and learning styles.
Further sources
Curriculum Framework Project
www.swinburne.edu.au/hed/
framework/

Page 28
Through Curriculum Framework Project activities (Table 4.2), the University has developed
a Professional Learning Model. Within the Model, undergraduates undertake a range of
experiential learning activities, receiving feedback on their development of generic skills while
becoming increasingly capable in their chosen discipline.
The Professional Learning Model provides undergraduates with a structured range of
development opportunities, including career assistance embedded within the curriculum,
complementary studies designed to diversify career profile, international study and workintegrated
learning opportunities, and options to accelerate or spread study to suit life
commitments. As well, final-year curricula feature industry-oriented capstone projects
designed to prepare graduates for the transition to professional practice.
The Model will continue to evolve to prepare professionally-oriented graduates with skill
sets matched to industry needs – something that Swinburne has been doing effectively
for many years.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 29
Table 4.2 – Curriculum Framework Project initiatives, 2005 – 2007
ACTIvITy And yeAr
2005 2006 2007
Program review (Sections 4.2 – 4.4)
Faculty-based reviews of the structure and content of 68 undergraduate programs, with major and minor
program changes approved at Academic Board in 2006.
Development of Careers in the Curriculum – accredited into all undergraduate programs in 2006.
Planning work for 3-unit elective sequences.
Review of methods of awarding Honours grades.
Quality assurance and assessment review (Section 4.5)
Seven 3-unit ‘out-of-discipline’ elective sequences
available.
Ten 3-unit ‘out-of-discipline’ elective sequences
available.
Initial review leading to standard definition of grades within Honours year programs; investigation of new
research pathway options.
Redevelopment of graduate attributes and generic skills, with new policy approved by Academic Board
in 2007.
Survey of current assessment methods, collection of examples of good practice; development of assessment guidelines; establishment of resources website;
targeted and faculty-based professional development; reforms to assessment & appeals policy/procedure.
Renewal of learning and teaching approaches (Sections 4.2; 4.5 & 4.6)
Preliminary work towards possible development of a Learning & Teaching Charter.
Development and wider implementation of more experiential approaches to program delivery (‘Real
World Learning’), including final-year capstone projects.
Development of new models of cooperative education, including a strengthened IBL program.
Work in the Faculty of Engineering & Industrial Sciences to develop a zero credit-point unit to satisfy the
Engineers Australia requirement for engineering students to undertake approved relevant experience
before graduating.
Faculty-based review of the composition and use of Course Advisory Committees.
Supporting learning and teaching (Sections 4.3; 4.5; 5.9)
Ongoing development, coordination and evaluation of academic components of orientation.
Project to devise and implement evidence-based strategies to reduce attrition (Student Retention
Rates Project).
Development and implementation of the Professional Certificate of Teaching Practice.
Development of multiple-term academic calendar (the Flexible Academic Calendar) to provide greater
opportunity to ‘speed-up’ or ‘slow-down’ study, and to overcome timetabling and space constraints.
Ongoing implementation of Sessionals@Swinburne project.
Implementation of project recommendations.
Implementation of professional development on experiential learning, project-based assessment, and so
forth.
Trial implementation of Flexible Academic
Calendar.

Page 30
Priorities for action
27. Develop and implement, in each
faculty, communication strategies to
raise staff and student awareness of
the Professional Leaning Model.
28. Expand professional development in
support of the pedagogy associated
with the Model.
29. Strengthen industry input, across
all faculties and disciplines, to
ensure that programs and pedagogy
maintain industry relevance.
Curriculum Framework Project initiatives have led to the various components of Swinburne’s
Professional Learning Model. Each initiative, and the Model as a whole, is overseen by the
University’s Deputy Deans’ Committee and supported by Swinburne Professional Learning
(a unit within the Higher Education Divisional Office). The Dean, Learning and Teaching,
undertakes an annual review of Curriculum Framework Project progress, and reports to
Council, Academic Board and senior management.
The University is currently involved in several relevant collaborative benchmarking projects
with other Australian and overseas universities. Some of these are supported by Carrick
Institute funding, including the following:
w Work Integrated Learning: a National Framework for Initiatives to Support Best Practice
– Australian Collaborative Education Network with Griffith, QUT and Swinburne as lead
partners
w The Development of Academics and Higher Education Futures – Council of Australian
Directors of Academic Development, led by Swinburne
w Increasing Institutional Success in the Integration and Assessment of Graduate Attributes
across the Disciplines by Identifying Academic Staff Beliefs and Attitudes about Graduate
Attributes and Addressing the Impact of these on Efforts to Develop Graduate Attributes
– a new collaboration of 18 universities including Swinburne, led by CQU, Murdoch, RMIT
and UNSW
As the Professional Learning Model evolves it should add considerable value to student
learning and also benefit industry and community stakeholders. The prospect of employment
post-graduation should increase, and long-term career skills and options should be enhanced.
These outcomes are central to aim 5 in Swinburne in 2015, which sees “…CEQ and GDS
performance enhanced at a rate of 1% per annum in each of the relevant indicators over the
next 7 years”.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 31
4.2 Program structure, development and accreditation
Program structure
The first major Curriculum Framework Project activity was a review of all undergraduate
programs against the objectives detailed in Table 4.1. Based on the findings, an action plan
was prepared to restructure programs as required. The necessary work was accomplished by
December 2006, and all faculties are currently reviewing implementation.
With the accreditation of a new BSc program in 2007, the University commenced the phased
adoption of a common modular degree structure based around majors, co-majors and
minors for most of its (300 credit-point) undergraduate degree programs – to enhance
flexibility and choice for students within the scope of the Professional Learning Model. This
initiative is supported by Commonwealth Government Workplace Productivity Program funding,
and the common degree structure:
w provides students with wide choice in combining majors and minors from different
disciplines and faculties
w facilitates development of new ‘tagged’ marketable degrees via combinations of majors
and minors from different disciplines and faculties
w simplifies the administration of degrees by reducing the former very divergent rule-based
complexity across the faculties and disciplines
To construct a degree program, students complete a major (14 – 18 units; 175 – 225 credit
points) and either: 1) a co-major (8 – 10 units; 100 – 125 credit points); 2) a co-major plus a
minor (normally 4 units; 50 credit points); 3) up to three minors (normally 12 units; 150 credit
points); 4) the requisite number of electives (Section 4.3); or 5) a second major if there is
sufficient overlap for both to be completed for a total of 300 credit points.
Moreover, many students articulate into the University’s undergraduate degree programs from
TAFE diploma and advanced diploma programs with advanced standing of 100 – 150 credit
points (Section 4.7). In the new common modular degree structure, this will occur on the basis of
‘block credit’, so that articulants need only complete a relevant major to complete their degree.
Further sources
Modular degree structure
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/modulardegree.pdf

Page 32
Further sources
Accreditation and reaccreditation policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/edupro/
AccreditationAndReaccreditation
HigherEducationSector.htm
Managing program changes
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/edupro/
ManagementOfChangesToHigher
EducationPrograms.htm
Accreditation and reaccreditation
The University has rigorous processes for program accreditation and reaccreditation, starting from
the development of a concept proposal in the case of new programs (Figure 4.1). Accreditation
and reaccreditation applications and program change proposals progress from a Faculty Academic
Committee to the Deputy Deans’ Committee, then to the Divisional Advisory Committee, then to
Academic Board for approval, with Course Advisory Committee input at all stages.
Step 1
Development of a
concept proposal
Step 2
Development of an
accreditation document
accreditations
Figure 4.1 – Overview of accreditation and reaccreditation processes at Swinburne
The Accreditation and Reaccreditation Policy & Procedure mandates extensive
consultation with internal and external stakeholders, and Course Advisory Committees play an
important role. Committee membership includes internal academics and at least two external
people with relevant and recent industry experience. Committees review program structure,
content and academic standard, and advise the Higher Education Accreditation Group, a
sub-committee of the Academic Board, accordingly. Prior to approval by Academic Board,
the accreditation document is reviewed by the Higher Education Accreditation Group and the
University Secretariat to ensure compliance with QA requirements.
Programs are reaccredited over a 5-year cycle, with any necessary changes during this
period approved and implemented according to the Management of Changes to Higher
Education Programs Policy & Procedure . The reaccreditation process is essentially the
same as the accreditation process. However, program performance data must be provided for
parameters such as demand, load, progression, attrition, student and graduate satisfaction,
and employment and further study outcomes. For TNE programs, the accreditation and
reaccreditation process has additional requirements (Section 5.5).
Professional accreditation and recognition of qualifications
Professional accreditations apply to many of the University’s undergraduate programs
(Table 4.3). The processes involve comprehensive program review by external expert panels
representing the professional bodies concerned.
Step 3
Approval process
reaccreditations
Step 4
Registration process

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 33
Table 4.3 – Current professional accreditations for undergraduate programs
PrOgrAm 1 ACCredITIng AUThOrITy yeAr
Bachelor of Arts (Psychology and Psychophysiology) Australian Psychological Society 2003
Bachelor of Science (Psychology and Psychophysiology) Australian Psychological Society 2003
Bachelor of Science (Psychology/Biochemistry) Australian Psychological Society 2003
Bachelor of Social Science (Psychology) Australian Psychological Society 2003
Bachelor of Science (Biochemistry and Chemistry) Royal Australian Chemical Institute 2004
Bachelor of Science (Biotechnology/Biochemistry) Royal Australian Chemical Institute 2004
Bachelor of Science (Biotechnology/Biochemistry) (Honours) Royal Australian Chemical Institute 2004
Bachelor of Science (Chemistry) (Honours) Royal Australian Chemical Institute 2004
Bachelor of Health Science (Public & Environmental Health) Australian Institute of Environmental Health 2006
Bachelor of Business (Accounting) CPA Australia
Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia
Bachelor of Business (Human Resource Management) Australian Human Resources Institute 2007
Bachelor of Business (Marketing) Australian Marketing & Social Research Society 2007
Bachelor of Multimedia (Multimedia Software Development) Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Computing Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Computing (Network Design & Security) Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Information Technology Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Business Information Systems Hawthorn Campus Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Science (Computer Science & Software Engineering) Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Science (Information Technology) Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Science (Professional Software Development) Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Software Engineering Australian Computer Society 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Telecommunication & Network Engineering) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Software Engineering Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Biomedical Engineering) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering)/Bachelor of Business Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) Engineers Australia 2006
Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics and Computer Systems) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics and Computer Systems)/Bachelor of Business Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics and Computer Systems)/Bachelor of Science (Computer Science and
Software Engineering)
2007
Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical)/Bachelor of Business Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Product Design Engineering) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Robotics and Mechatronics) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Robotics and Mechatronics)/Bachelor of Science (Computer Science & Software
Engineering)
Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Telecommunication and Network Engineering) Engineers Australia 2003
Bachelor of Engineering (Product Design Engineering) Australian Institute of Engineers 2003
1 Sixteen undergraduate programs offered at Swinburne’s Sarawak Branch Campus have professional accreditations with Australian, Malaysian and/or British agencies.
Swinburne’s program accreditation and reaccreditation processes demand that professional accreditation requirements are met, and various components of the
Professional Learning Model contribute well to professional accreditation. For instance, final-year ‘capstone’ projects facilitate the accreditation of Swinburne’s engineering
programs by Engineers Australia.

Page 34
Priorities for action
30. Update accreditation and
reaccreditation procedures to
reflect the program structure
mandated under the Professional
Learning Model.
31. Formalise regular program review
processes, based on program-level
performance data and emphasising
key features of the Model.
International recognition and accreditation are also important in the context of improving
graduate employment and further study outcomes in the global environment. For example,
the Washington Accord, which recognises substantial equivalence in the accreditation of
qualifications in professional engineering, is a useful mechanism, and the University is
actively pursuing Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), Association
of MBAs (AMBA) and European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) accreditations for its
undergraduate business provision.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 35
4.3 Widening learning opportunities
Several features of the Professional Learning Model are designed to widen learning
opportunities for undergraduates, in terms of the structure and content of their program and in
the rate at which they can progress.
Electives plus
Specially-constructed three-unit elective sequences are an important component of the Model
in that they ‘widen learning opportunities’ for students. The Electives Plus initiative allows
undergraduates not already in double or co-major degree studies to undertake approved
sequences of up to three out-of-discipline elective units to:
w broaden knowledge and career options, especially for those undertaking highly
specialised studies
w enhance employability for those undertaking more general studies
w facilitate the pursuit of interests or talents outside the discipline focus
While students can enrol in Electives plus units in regular semesters, several of these units
were offered during a ‘Winter Term’ introduced in 2007. Of 456 enrolments in the units offered
in Melbourne, 54.5% were out-of-discipline (Table 4.4). Electives plus sequences in Enterprise
Marketing, the Networked Economy and Undergraduate Research Skills are available in
‘normal’ semesters, and a new Sustainability sequence is available in 2008.
Table 4.4 – Enrolments in Electives plus units in Winter Term 2007
ELECtivES PLuS SeQUenCe UnIT
TOTAL enrOLmenTS
(n)
Melbourne
Design: Process & Strategy Digital Design 45
Design: Process & Strategy Contemporary Design Issues 56
Design: Process & Strategy Design Management 60
Effective Communication Critical Thinking 78
Effective Communication Professional Communications Practice 68
Establishing & Running a Business Accounting for Success 29
Establishing & Running a Business New Venture Development & Management 53
Information Orientation & Knowledge
Management
Introduction to Business Information Systems 31
Information Orientation & Knowledge
Management
Knowledge Management 24
Sarawak
Multimedia – Web Development Multimedia Applications 12
Total 456
Further sources
Electives plus
www.swinburne.edu.au/hed/
professionallearning/electivesplus.
html

Page 36
Further sources
Flexible Academic Calendar
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/flexiblecalendar.pdf
flexible academic calendar
With the support of Workplace Productivity Program funding, Swinburne is currently trialling a
Flexible Academic Calendar which allows postgraduate coursework programs to be offered
in either conventional 12-week semesters or 6-week terms, aligned to a hybrid semester/term
system for undergraduate programs (Figure 4.2).
Term 3
Winter Term
(Term 4)
Figure 4.2 – The Flexible Academic Calendar
Among the benefits advanced for the new Calendar are that it will:
w showcase and facilitate Electives Plus sequences through an optional Winter Term (given
that timetable clashes under the traditional calendar restrict students’ ability to undertake
elective sequences)
w reduce the heavy demand on teaching facilities during 24 of 52 weeks each year
(and under-utilisation at other times) and thus reduce facility constraints on teaching
and learning styles (given that the Professional Learning Model involves collaborative
project work that typically demands space for group meetings and dedicated studio and
laboratory facilities)
w provide opportunities for students to spread or accelerate their learning (for example,
undergraduates could opt to study up to 12 additional units in a year and complete 300
credit point programs within two years)
w create competitive advantage in recruiting international students for whom arrival in
Australia is delayed beyond ‘normal’ intake dates for visa or other reasons (and perhaps
an advantage also in the recruitment of domestic students considering a move after an
unsatisfactory first semester experience elsewhere, and/or those articulating from TAFE)
Term 5
Semester 1 Semester 2
Term 2
Summer Term
(Term 1)
Term 6

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 37
As part of the evaluation process, student perspectives of Winter Term delivery in 2007 were
canvassed via an online survey. Major findings were that:
w 55% of respondents (and 72% of international respondents) enrolled to accelerate their
studies, while 25% enrolled to spread their studies
w 61% of respondents believed that the knowledge gained was similar to that achieved in a
‘normal’ 12-week semester, while 24% believed it to be greater
w 51% of respondents believed that they received similar feedback on their work; 24%
believed they received more feedback
w 83% of respondents (and 71% of international respondents) rated their overall experience
as mostly positive, compared with 7% who rated it as mostly negative
Priorities for action
32. Promote Electives plus and the
associated career benefits to
students in order to improve uptake.
33. Consult more widely with industry
and graduates to capture views on
which electives best complement
desired employment, career and
further study outcomes.
34. Make elective units available
(from 2009) as minors within
degree structures.
35. Expand the range of units available
in Winter and Summer Terms.

Page 38
Further sources
Graduate attributes policy
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/edupro/
SwinburneGraduateAttributes
AndKeyGenericSkills.htm
4.4 Graduate attributes, employability and career skills
graduate attributes
A desire to improve the immediate employment prospects of Swinburne graduates and their
long-term career skills is an important driver in the development of the Professional Learning
Model, and an important goal in the Swinburne in 2015 vision. The University’s undergraduate
programs should assist graduates to be:
w capable in their chosen professional, vocational or study areas
w entrepreneurial in contributing to innovation and development within their workplace
and community
w effective and ethical in work and community situations
w adaptable and able to manage change
w aware of the local and international environments in which they will contribute (including
the socio-cultural, economic and natural aspects of those environments)
These five graduate attributes characterise central aspects of programs within the
Professional Learning Model, and they facilitate the promotion of distinctive features of the
learning experience to prospective employers of Swinburne graduates. Thus, undergraduate
programs are designed to foster the development of the graduate attributes, and faculties
are expected, during accreditation and reaccreditation processes, to illustrate how program
content and delivery will assist in this.
Late in 2007, a new Graduate Attributes Policy was adopted by the Academic Board. It
affirmed the graduate attributes, and also acknowledged the importance of generic skills for:
w teamwork
w analysis and problem solving
w communication
w tackling unfamiliar problems
w working independently
At unit level, the new Policy focuses on providing students with feedback on their development
of generic skills. These skills coincide with those measured in the Course Experience
Questionnaire, and faculties at Swinburne can adapt them to suit discipline areas or adopt
generic skill-sets specified by professional or other external accrediting bodies. Disciplines are
expected to seek industry input in the development of any discipline-specific generic skills, for
example through Course Advisory Committees, and such discipline-specific generic skills must
be endorsed by Faculty Academic Committees.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 39
The Swinburne approach to the development of graduate attributes and the associated generic
skills does not require the provision of quantitative measures of attainment. Instead, the
University aims to:
w ensure that all undergraduate programs provide ample opportunities for students to
develop the graduate attributes
w provide constructive and timely feedback to students on their progress in the development
of key skills at unit level
Units within each program are designed to foster some of the generic skills identified for the
relevant discipline. In addition, learners often receive feedback on generic skill attainment via
particular assessment tasks. Where such feedback is provided, the relevant generic skills are
listed in the Unit of Study Outline.
In comparison with graduates of other universities, Swinburne graduates consistently rate
the University highly for generic skill development. Mean scores on the CEQ generic skills
scale have been invariably greater than 70 (and occasionally above 80) across all fields of
education, in comparison with national averages which remain in the mid-60s (Figure 4.3).
% satisfaction; generic skill
90
80
70
60
50
40
Creative Arts Engineering Information
Technology
Management
and Commerce
Society and
Culture
2004 71.2 72.7 71.6 78.5 75.7 74.5
2005 74.5 81.1 75.2 74.5 81.6 76.6
2006 71.3 70.4 71.9 74.4 74.3 72.8
2007 69.9 70.2 70.8 73.7 77.9 72.5
2004–2006 National average 61.1 69.1 61.8 63.3 68.0 64.8
Figure 4.3 – CEQ ‘generic skills’ scale performance by broad field of education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007,
with the national mean for 2004 – 2006 for each field.
All fields

Page 40
Further sources
Careers in the Curriculum
www.swinburne.edu.au/hed/
professionallearning/careers.
html
Priorities for action
36. Deploy the generic skills policy
University-wide, through facultybased
deployment plans currently in
preparation.
37. Communicate the importance
that employers place on graduate
attributes and generic skills to
undergraduates – focus groups
indicate that many students have
little knowledge of the graduate
attributes and generic skills, and
little knowledge of their importance
to employers.
Careers in the Curriculum
All undergraduates complete a zero-cost, one-semester unit called Careers in the
Curriculum, delivered flexibly in various modes by the Student Services Careers &
Employment Unit, to develop career planning and management skills. This unit incorporates
advice and feedback on job applications and interviews, directed both at obtaining
professional placements (including industry-based learning placements; Section 4.5) and at
gaining employment post-graduation. For this reason, it is normally undertaken in second year,
in time to assist students to apply for placements, and tailored to the professional employment
outcomes relevant to Swinburne’s disciplines.
Careers in the Curriculum incorporates optional seminars led by career consultants, covering
topics including:
w self-analysis of existing knowledge and skills, and further training needs
w writing resumés and covering letters
w networking
w graduate attributes and employer expectations
w interview theory and practice
w participation in other selection processes
w developing a personal ‘career action plan’
Students undertaking Careers in the Curriculum prepare an application letter and resumé in
response to an advertisement of their choosing. They then receive written feedback on both
from one of Swinburne’s career consultants.
Different faculties and discipline areas have developed strategies to complement and
contextualise Careers in the Curriculum, and to assist international students, in particular, to
identify and address shortfalls in their generic skills. For example, the Faculty of Information &
Communication Technologies won a Vice-Chancellor’s Award in 2007 for its ‘ICT Professional
Employment Program’, largely on the basis of improved employment outcomes, and the
Faculty of Design has instituted a ‘Careers Day’ which affords all undergraduates an
opportunity to talk with employers across a range of careers. In all, 755 students attended
Careers in the Curriculum sessions in 2007, including 411 international students.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 41
4.5 ‘Real world’ learning
Assessment design and practice
The Professional Learning Model has necessitated much rethinking at Swinburne on ways to
assess learning – particularly in the context of experiential, ‘real world’ delivery. As a result,
there is a growing emphasis on formative assessment within units and within programs to
provide useful feedback to students. There is also recognition of a need to expand and clarify
assessment requirements, guidelines and marking criteria; and to engage students in the
assessment process as a learning experience.
Further, the move to embed graduate attributes and generic skills deeply into the curriculum
requires more attention to the way in which attainment is validated through assessment.
Similarly, experiential learning demands consistent assessment criteria for group project work,
case study exercises, industry-based learning and online discussions, and the inclusion of
reflective components in program delivery.
Capstone projects
The 2005 – 06 review of programs identified several successful learning and assessment
practices with wide applicability. In particular, well-structured examples of project-focused,
group and interdisciplinary approaches were identified, including examples of effective
student engagement with external clients and partners. Discussions with students, staff
and external parties indicated that these practices enrich student experience and improve
learning outcomes. In addition, the experience of universities using such pedagogical
models internationally indicated that professionally-oriented projects provide students with
opportunities to engage in industry-relevant, collaborative, and self-directed learning in their
undergraduate studies.
For these reasons, final-year ‘capstone’ projects are now a vital component of the Professional
Learning Model. Excluding small numbers of articulating students, all undergraduates will
take at least two major project units (each a quarter of a year’s load, usually scheduled in final
year) within their degree program by 2010. These capstone projects generally involve:
w major tasks – discipline-specific, multidisciplinary and/or inter-faculty – to be achieved
over one or two 12.5 credit point units of study, with students working individually or in
teams
w open-structured, authentic professional activities and challenges, with students expected
to: 1) apply and/or synthesise a broad range of previously acquired knowledge and skills;
2) acquire new knowledge and skills; 3) develop the skills, behaviours and attitudes
required of a professional in the workplace; and 4) become self-directed learners,
independently seeking resources, and peer and professional assistance as needed
w opportunities to work in a real-world context, to extend learning beyond the lecture
theatre or classroom, and to access professional facilities such as laboratories, studios
and equipment appropriate to project requirements

Page 42
The aim of capstone projects is to give students significant, professionally-focused learning
experiences in their final year of study. They provide real-world activities and challenges to be
addressed within a supportive, collaborative environment. Often, projects are sourced from
business or the wider community (including through advertised competitions and research tasks).
Alternatively, they can be based on internal project briefs that are sometimes student-devised.
Students undertaking capstone projects are encouraged to identify their personal strengths,
develop project management, teamwork and personal skills, and apply their learning in an
authentic context. Thus, the projects should foster graduate attributes, enhance curriculum vitae,
and help prepare students for successful employment, career and further study post-graduation.
Capstone projects have long characterised design, engineering, IT and science programs, and
they are being extended to other disciplines. As of December 2007, all discipline areas have
at least accredited (and often trialled) capstone project units, and a year-long study of student
perspectives indicates such units to be popular and effective in terms of both disciplinerelated
learning and the development of the graduate attributes and generic skills. Based on
2007 Student Feedback on Units Survey data (Sections 3.6 & 4.9), mean student satisfaction
with project units (4.8) is greater than for units generally (4.6).
Cooperative education
Cooperative education at Swinburne combines learning in the classroom with learning on the
job, and the workplace provides an ‘authentic’ learning environment. Eligible students put
their academic knowledge into action through relevant (and usually paid) work experience
in business and community settings, then bring the skills and insights acquired back to
the classroom to inform their future study. Thus, cooperative education programs establish
and sustain relationships between the University, employers and students, and contribute
significantly to the Professional Learning Model and the outcomes sought by stakeholders.
The Cooperative Education Office within the Higher Education Divisional Office is responsible
for the strategic management of cooperative education. The former was established in 2006,
replacing the former Office of Industry Liaison, and given a brief to integrate professional
placements more firmly into the curriculum. Operational management rests with the faculties,
and faculty representatives meet regularly as part of the University’s Cooperative Education
Network and Cooperative Education Coordination Committee. Largely as a result of this
activity, the University currently has three main approaches to cooperative education:
w industry-based learning (IBL), the subject of a commendation in Swinburne’s cycle 1 audit,
which sees undergraduates undertaking a full-time paid placement in industry for six or
12 months in a relevant discipline area
w industry placement (IP), wherein Design students work in industry 4 days/week with
1 day/week of supported learning in the University’s studios
w a Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) program wherein scholarship students
undertake two industry placements over their three years of study

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 43
The IBL program is the largest of these schemes. With a history at Swinburne of more than 40
years, it has high participation levels – particularly in engineering and IT (Table 4.5). This was
boosted further in 2006 through the introduction of sponsored IBL scholarships. In all, 129 IBL
scholarships were offered in 2006, and 90 in 2007.
Table 4.5 – Work experience in industry, 2004 – 2007 1
Selected fields of education 1, 2
Students (n) participating in work experience in industry
2004 2005 2006 2007
Architecture & Building 1 - 8 6
Creative Arts 36 48 47
Engineering 246 165 222 188
Health 18 12 15 16
Information Technology 145 79 99 104
Management/Commerce 93 88 102 141
Natural/Physical Sciences 18 22 27 22
Society & Culture - 6 2 5
All fields 557 372 523 529
1
Work experience in industry (WEI) is a DEEWR category of cooperative education. The data also include Faculty
of Design industry placements.
2
Business practice issues following a changed interpretation of WEI with the introduction of HESA in 2005 led
to under-reported WEI in that year. The real figure was c. 540.
Participating students express great satisfaction with the IBL program (Table 4.6), and GDS
data confirm that participation increases the chances of achieving full-time employment postgraduation
(Table 4.7). Thus, there are compelling reasons for expanding IBL and other forms
of cooperative education.
Table 4.6 – Host and participant satisfaction with the IBL program, 2004 – 2006
Aspect of IBL program Respondent group % satisfied (from survey data)
2004 2005 2006
Overall satisfaction Hosts 96 95 84
Students 94 93 91
Placement process Hosts 86 81 73
Support from Swinburne
during placement
Students 83 79 76
Hosts 78 71 64
Students 68 63 61
Support from host Students 92 90 88
Professional growth Students 99 94 90
Level of work Students n/a 84 88
Academic preparation Students n/a 76 73
Swinburne supervisor visits Students n/a n/a 67
Job-seeking preparation Students n/a n/a 83

Page 44
Priorities for action
38. Revise assessment policy and
procedure to accord better with
‘real-world’ approaches to learning.
39. Complete a recently-instigated
initiative to identify and disseminate
best-practice in project-based
assessment, drawing on the earlier
review of assessment practice to
develop an holistic understanding of
issues pertaining to the experience
of students and academic and
administrative personnel.
40. Use authentic workplace learning
environments to foster and report on
the development of generic skills.
41. Develop strategies to encourage
more students to participate in
cooperative education, given the
advantage it conveys in gaining
employment post-graduation.
42. Improve the level of support offered
by Swinburne to hosts and students
during IBL placements, and explore
and address reasons for the recent
decline in host satisfaction with the
scheme.
Table 4.7 – Employment rates for Swinburne graduates, 2004 – 2007, from GDS data
yeAr
IBL participants
% graduates in full-time employment (of those
available)
Non-IBL participants
% graduates in full-time employment (of those
available)
2004 94.8 74.8
2005 92.9 77.1
2006 100.0 79.0
2007 80.0 78.7
Although the IBL program attracts academic credit, this credit does not feed into
undergraduate degrees. Rather, participants receive an acknowledgement of participation on
their graduation transcript. However, the University is committed to developing new models of
academic credit-bearing placement more strongly aligned to the curriculum in an attempt to:
w increase academic rigour and involvement
w improve the student learning experience
w optimise student uptake
To achieve this, Swinburne Professional Learning is implementing a University-wide project
called Integrating Professional Placements into the Curriculum. This initiative builds on the IBL
model to develop and coordinate a wider range of curriculum-aligned professional placement
opportunities. For example, in the future students will be able to undertake a placement while
achieving credit towards their principal degree. This is not entirely new – programs such
as the Bachelor of Information Technology and the Faculty of Design’s Industry Placement
scheme already attract credit.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 45
4.6 Pathways to further study
Further full-time study rates are highest at Swinburne for the Society & Culture and Natural/
Physical Sciences fields of education – consistently above the national average in the case of
the former. Overall, however, relatively few Swinburne graduates, in comparison with those
from other Australian universities, proceed to further study (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8 – % undergraduates in further full-time study for Swinburne other Australian
universities (All), by field of education, 2004 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
2004 2005 2006 2007
Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne
Creative Arts 25.0 30.6 22.3 28.6 18.0 27.9 20.0
Engineering 14.7 18.6 9.5 13.3 15.9 12.3 10.9
Health 15.0 13.1 0.0 13.5 9.1 11.3 0.0
IT 15.8 25.3 11.9 21.7 20.3 19.5 19.7
Management/Commerce 9.5 18.3 9.0 18.3 11.6 16.4 10.5
Nat/Physical Sciences 45.2 51.2 30.2 50.8 36.0 48.4 22.2
Society & Culture 36.0 30.5 35.0 31.1 35.1 31.7 25.8
All undergraduates 18.9 24.1 15.8 23.3 18.5 22.0 15.4
Developing effective and engaging undergraduate pathways to research is critical to
Swinburne’s growing research profile and strong professional focus for graduates. However,
enticing undergraduates into higher degree candidature is challenging when many of the most
capable local students undertake industry placements during their undergraduate programs.
The placements lengthen the undergraduate study period and frequently result in attractive job
offers from placement employers – and both factors militate against attracting able students
to undertake further study on relatively low levels of scholarship support.
For this reason, various strategies are under consideration to provide more effective pathways
to research for Swinburne undergraduates. These include both curriculum design and
pedagogical approaches such as:
w developing and promoting rigorous and engaging Honours year additions to three-year
degrees, and offering research options within four-year engineering degrees
w offering accelerated pathways through undergraduate studies to highly capable
undergraduates, to allow completion of Honours in a compressed timeframe
w capitalizing on synergies between industry placement and industry-focused research
opportunities to offer Honours by industry-based research
w offering research experiences and research methods development to capable
undergraduates
w adopting enquiry-based teaching methods which model research techniques, and/or
approaches that integrate research issues and outcomes into undergraduate curricula
w achieving greater alignment between undergraduate curricula and the University’s priority
research areas
Priorities for action
43. Evaluate options, including
discipline- and faculty-specific
options, for improved pathways to
further study.

Page 46
Further sources
Pathways Direct
www.swin.edu.au/hed/
direct/#pathways
4.7 Intersectoral articulation
Of Australian universities, Swinburne has consistently had, as a percentage of the
commencing undergraduate cohort, the highest level of TAFE – Higher Education articulation
(Table 4.9).
Table 4.9 – TAFE articulants as a percentage of the domestic commencing undergraduate cohort
at Australian universities, 2004 – 2007 (top 10 universities) 1
UnIverSITy 2004 2005 2006 2007
Swinburne 22.1 25.8 25.5 27.1
University of Western Sydney 21.7 22.4 20.7 n/a
RMIT 19.8 20.6 20.2 n/a
ACU 12.4 4.0 14.4 n/a
Charles Sturt University 13.6 15.2 14.0 n/a
Edith Cowan University 14.0 14.8 13.7 n/a
University of Canberra 12.1 10.3 12.9 n/a
Deakin University 14.1 11.9 11.9 n/a
Murdoch University 13.1 14.8 11.5 n/a
VU 15.2 14.4 9.8 n/a
1 DEST data for 2004 – 2006; ‘unofficial’ preliminary figures for Swinburne in 2007.
In most years, close to half of the articulants commencing undergraduate degree programs
come from Swinburne’s TAFE Division, often via Pathways Direct entry arrangements with
advanced standing (Figure 4.4). Through Pathways Direct, Swinburne TAFE students are
offered places in various degree programs without having to apply through Victorian Tertiary
Admissions Centre (VTAC), and the credit transfer they receive allows them to complete an
undergraduate degree relatively quickly. The scheme is open to students in the final year of
TAFE study (usually in diploma or advanced diploma programs) and selection is based on
academic achievement.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 47
Headcount
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 4.4 – TAFE articulants in the commencing undergraduate cohort at Swinburne,
2004 – 2007
In percentage terms, the level of articulation within Swinburne has been stable over recent
years. Articulation between the TAFE School of Business and the Faculty of Business &
Enterprise accounts for more than a third of the total (Table 4.10).
Table 4.10 – Students (n) articulating from TAFE to Higher Education at Swinburne, 2004 to 2005,
2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007, by School and Faculty
TAFE School
2004 2005 2006 2007
Business &
Enterprise
Design
Engineering
& Industrial
Sciences
Higher Education Faculty
Information &
Communication
Technology
Life & Social
Sciences
Other TAFE
Swinburne TAFE
Higher Education
at Lilydale
Arts, Hospitality & Sciences 6 176 4 20 52 23 281
Business 427 - 1 7 44 159 638
Engineering 1 27 23 65 40 6 162
Social Sciences 8 4 3 - 50 7 72
Other 5 1 5 6 - 4 21
Total 447 208 36 98 186 199 1,174
Total

Page 48
Generally, articulants from Swinburne TAFE programs progress about as well as entrants from
year 12 (Table 4.11), which is remarkable considering that the Tertiary Entrance Score of TAFE
students is typically 30 points below that of year 12 entrants. The grade point averages of
TAFE articulants are below those of year 12 entrants, although only by 2 – 3% in recent years
(Table 4.12).
Table 4.11 – Progression rates for Swinburne TAFE articulants and year 12 entrants, 2004 – 2007
yeAr
2004 intake
2005 intake
2006 intake
2007 intake
Mean progression
TAFE Year 12
2004 0.84 0.83
2005 0.84 0.85
2006 0.89 0.90
2007 0.84 0.92
2005 0.79 0.81
2006 0.86 0.84
2007 0.88 0.91
2006 0.82 0.81
2007 0.90 0.85
2007 0.80 0.83
Table 4.12 – Grade point averages (GPAs) for Swinburne TAFE articulants and year 12 entrants,
2004 – 2007
yeAr
Mean GPA
TAFE Year 12
2004 58.0 63.7
2005 56.4 63.8
2006 62.9 63.8
2007 62.1 64.0

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 49
Attrition for Swinburne TAFE articulants is invariably lower than that of students with a
different basis of admission, including those from other TAFE providers (Figure 4.5).
Attrition rates
Figure 4.5 – Attrition rate by basis of admission, 2004 – 2006
Each year, more than 200 Higher Education students also capitalise on the University’s
‘intersectoral advantage’ by undertaking complementary TAFE studies. For example, in 2007 c.
260 students commenced Swinburne TAFE programs having been enrolled in Higher Education
programs at Swinburne the previous year (Figure 4.6). In some cases, their TAFE studies were
concurrent with Higher Education studies, but in others the articulation to TAFE was postcompletion
or after partial completion of a Higher Education program. Typical examples that fit
well with the Professional Learning Model are engineering students picking up knowledge and
skills in metallurgy and/or metal fabrication, and Ph D students acquiring knowledge and skills
in small business management.
Headcount
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
280
260
240
220
200
2004 2005 2006
2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 4.6 – Higher Education to TAFE articulation at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007
Swinburne TAFE articulants
Other TAFE articulants
Year 12
Other
All Swinburne
Priorities for action
44. Clarify the role of the University’s
Intersectoral Advisory Committee
– this Committee was established
as a standing committee of the
University Executive with a brief to
support intersectoral activity, but a
review of its activity is timely.

Page 50
4.8 Infrastructure
During 2003 – 2007, the University invested $125M to enhance the built environment at its
Melbourne campuses and, in accordance with the 2008 – 2012 Capital Management Plan, a
further $250M will be spent on construction and refurbishment over the next 5 years. This
work is aligned to the Swinburne in 2015 vision, and much of it will complement recent
developments in supporting implementation of the Professional Learning Model (Table 4.13).
In this latter respect, the aim is to increase the provision of flexible learning spaces, facilities,
equipment, accessible information resources and ICT services to allow learners to study at
their own time, pace and place.
Table 4.13 – A selection of recent infrastructure developments at Swinburne in support of flexible delivery and the Professional Learning Model
LeAd COrPOrATe UnIT(S) ServICe
Information Technology Services Provision of full wireless coverage at all Melbourne campuses, with data transmission capability of 54
megabits/second.
Information Resources
Information Technology Services
Establishment of open access computer environments in libraries at Hawthorn (232 PCs, including 150 in a
‘Late-Lab’ with 24/7 access; 34 wireless laptops for loan), Lilydale (94 PCs; 2 iMacs; 20 wireless laptops for
loan) and Prahran (56 PCs; 3 iMacs; 8 wireless laptops for loan).
Facilities & Services Refurbishment of the BA, EN, EW and AR buildings at Hawthorn, with greatly increased provision of flexible
learning spaces including syndicate and meeting rooms with appropriate facilities and equipment.
Facilities & Services
Information Resources
Refurbishment of the Library at Hawthorn, with $4M spent to provide open plan work areas, bookable
syndicate rooms and Late-Lab access to 150 PCs on two floors.
Facilities & Services Construction of a large atrium connecting the Library with the BA building at Hawthorn, creating an open
environment for student collaboration, network access and social activity.
Swinburne Professional Learning
Information Technology Services
Swinburne Professional Learning
Information Technology Services
Provision of the Blackboard online learning management system for all current units (with the exception of
some postgraduate support units with few enrolments), with at least a unit outline provided, together with
communication facilities such as discussion, chat and email, and often full learning guides, lecture notes,
Powerpoint slides, assessment facilities and so forth.
Introduction of the Lectopia automated lecture recording system to record lectures and any material
projected through classroom data projection systems – recordings are available to students in streaming
video online, video downloads and podcasts to PC’s and portable devices such as iPods, 3G phones, PDAs,
and other MP3 players.
Information Technology Services Upgrade of nine lecture theatres in 2007 with audio-visual and computing consoles, as part of an ongoing
upgrade of all lecture theatres.
Information Resources More flexible Library opening hours at all campuses, tailored to suit the needs of student cohorts, with online
reserve materials available to all students via their OPAX password.
Information Resources Expansion of the Electronic Book Library collection, with the addition in 2007 of >50,000 titles in full text
online.
Information Resources Establishment of unit of study liaison and reference services through the Library, correlated directly to
program offerings, and telephone, SMS and email query services.
Information Resources Pilot implementation of the Library Rover scheme, which sees students employed and trained to provide
frontline ‘roving’ support to students.
Information Resources Contextualised Library training, integrated into the curriculum and mapped to the University’s graduate
attributes, and podcasts on the use of Library resources.
Information Resources Implementation of Supersearch – a federated search engine that searches multiple database simultaneously
– and Ezyproxy authentication software that provides access to resources both on- and off-campus.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 51
Priorities for action
45. Increase the space available for capstone project work – this will largely be addressed at
Hawthorn through: 1) the establishment in 2008 of the ‘Hawthorn Project Hub’, which will have
c. 35 meeting rooms and extensive communal space with access to technology such as wifi,
laptops and digital projectors for teams undertaking capstone projects; and 2) completion in
2010 of the 20,000m 2 Burwood Road Advanced Technology Building at Hawthorn, with many
flexible learning spaces and informal collaboration areas, and an in-built capacity to cater for
future shifts in approaches to delivery.
46. Extend Library opening hours and strengthen the collection in support of Careers in the Curriculum.
47. Upgrade to Blackboard v 7.0 to improve communication interfaces and enhance e-portfolio facilities,
and subsequently to v 8.0 to enhance the ‘gradebook’ student assessment area by providing drag and
drop capabilities and provision for self-assessment and peer-assessment.
48. Install further data projection units or update units in classrooms, and install additional Lectopia
automated video recording units in a further 15 rooms during 2008 – Lectopia is currently available
in 26 teaching venues, and its popularity is evidenced by > 75,000 hits in 2007.
49. Implement SafeAssign anti-plagiarism software on an upgraded version of Blackboard in 2008 –
funding is earmarked for this purpose, and the implementation of SafeAssign follows a revision
of the University’s plagiarism policy and the development of an Avoiding Plagiarism website with
resources to support new approaches to educating staff and students about the associated issues.
Further sources
Avoiding plagiarism
www.swinburne.edu.au/ltas/
plagiarism/

Page 52
4.9 Summary of outcomes
The Professional Learning Model should improve outcomes for a range of stakeholders –
particularly undergraduate students and graduates – and this should be reflected in all of the
main performance indicators. The University’s performance with respect to most of these has
been consistently strong, but there is scope for improvement.
Progression
Progression rates at Swinburne have been reasonably stable in recent years for most fields of
study, and comparable to national rates (Table 4.14).
Table 4.14 – Undergraduate progression rate for selected broad fields of education at Swinburne
and for all Australian universities (All), 2004 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
2004 2005 2006 2007
Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne
Creative Arts 92.9 90.9 91.7 90.6 92.8 90.5 91.9
Engineering 86.3 85.6 85.0 85.6 84.3 86.1 85.2
IT 81.9 79.1 79.8 79.3 80.9 79.8 79.8
Management/
Commerce
Nat/Physical
Sciences
87.0 84.4 85.8 84.0 85.3 84.0 84.7
89.0 86.7 87.3 86.6 88.0 86.5 88.5
Society & Culture 86.9 87.2 84.3 86.8 84.8 86.8 84.5
All 86.9 86.9 85.7 86.7 86.1 86.9 85.9
Attrition
Overall, attrition at Swinburne for students commencing bachelor level degrees has declined in
recent years, with the increase in 2005 an artefact of understated completions data for some
offshore programs (Table 4.15).
Table 4.15 – % attrition at Swinburne, 2004 – 2006, for students commencing undergraduate
programs in selected broad fields of education, with comparative data for all Australian
universities
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
2004 2005 2006
Creative Arts 10.6 9.4 9.1
Engineering 15.1 20.1 18.4
IT 18.1 21.3 13.8
Management/Commerce 15.3 18.9 14.8
Natural/Physical Sciences 26.0 20.2 22.2
Society & Culture 28.4 23.6 25.8
All Swinburne 16.8 18.5 15.7
All Australian universities 17.4 17.3 n/a

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 53
Student satisfaction
Student satisfaction with units and teaching is high, with no significant difference between
broad fields of education (Table 4.16). A decline in mean scores between semester 1 2006 and
semester 1 2007 may relate to the shift from paper-based to online surveying (Section 3.6).
Table 4.16 – Mean scores on major satisfaction items on the Swinburne SFU Survey for selected
fields of education, semester 1 2006 and semester 1 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Satisfaction
with unit 1
Semester 1 2006 Semester 1 2007
Satisfaction
with teaching 1
Satisfaction
with unit
Satisfaction
with teaching
Creative Arts 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.6
Engineering 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7
Information Technology 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.6
Management/Commerce 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.5
Natural/Physical Sciences 4.7 5.0 4.5 4.5
Society & Culture 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.8
All fields 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.6
1 Student satisfaction at unit level is assessed via a Student Feedback on Units Survey. Two survey questions ask
students to respond to statements regarding their overall satisfaction with the unit concerned, and their overall
satisfaction with the teaching of that unit – using 6-point Likert scales from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
Means are calculated for each item where ‘strongly agree’ = 6 and ‘strongly disagree’ = 1. Valid responses = 12,900
(2006) and 13,639 (2007).

Page 54
% good Teaching Scale
graduate satisfaction
Graduates consistently rate the University highly on the CEQ good teaching scale, with mean
scores on this scale above the national mean every year. Scores at Swinburne have generally
been greatest for Society & Culture and Creative Arts, and lower for Engineering and IT (Figure
4.7). This reflects the situation nationally, but at Swinburne the trend is to improvement for
both Engineering and IT (Figure 4.7).
70
60
50
40
30
20
Creative Arts engineering Information
Technology
management
and Commerce
Society and
Culture
2004 58.6 40.9 42.3 58.7 62.1 52.8
2005 58.5 47.2 49.9 53.4 60.8 53.7
2006 61.8 46.6 49.5 50.8 59.7 52.8
2007 60.9 47.3 50.7 52.8 68.1 55.3
2004–2006 national average 53.1 38.0 41.5 41.0 54.2 46.9
Figure 4.7 – CEQ ‘good teaching’ scale performance by field of education at Swinburne,
2004 – 2007, with the national mean for 2004 – 2006 for each field
All fi elds

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 55
As for the other CEQ-derived measures, Swinburne graduates consistently rate the University
more highly in terms of ‘overall satisfaction’ than do graduates of most other Australian
universities. Swinburne’s mean score on this single CEQ item has been consistently c. 15%
above the national mean (Figure 4.8).
% Overall Satisfaction
90
80
70
60
50
40
Creative Arts engineering Information
Technology
management
and Commerce
Society and
Culture
All fi elds
74.4 70.2 72.9 85.2 84.9 78.6 2004
77.0 81.6 74.4 83.8 82.4 79.4 2005
82.3 76.8 78.3 80.7 81.4 79.7 2006
79.2 72.7 81.2 79.8 89.6 79.6 2007
64.9 65.5 61.3 68.5 74.9 68.8 2004–2006 national average
Figure 4.8 – CEQ ‘overall satisfaction’ measure by field of education at Swinburne,
2004 – 2007, with the national mean for 2004 – 2006 for each field

Page 56
employment outcomes
Based on Graduate Destination Survey (GDS) data, full-time employment for graduates
of Swinburne’s undergraduate programs has historically been somewhat below national
averages, and this has been a major motivation underpinning the development of the
Professional Learning Model (Table 4.17).
Table 4.17 – % full-time undergraduate employment for selected broad fields of education, for
Swinburne and for all Australian universities (All), 2004 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
2004 2005 2006 2007
Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne
Creative Arts 61.7 59.2 72.5 63.1 70.3 65.5 66.7
Engineering 75.9 83.6 79.1 85.5 86.0 87.6 79.7
IT 68.8 67.1 68.1 68.5 76.1 75.5 80.2
Management/
Commerce
Nat/Physical
Sciences
78.4 80.3 79.1 80.1 76.5 80.9 75.5
65.0 70.3 81.3 74.4 64.0 76.9 76.9
Society & Culture 71.9 80.5 68.4 80.7 68.2 79.5 80.6
All fields 73.6 79.4 76.1 80.0 76.8 81.3 75.9
LTPf performance
Performance under the Commonwealth Government’s Learning & Teaching Performance
Fund (LTPF) scheme is based on various measures for which data are gathered through
the GDS and CEQ (for graduate employment, further study and satisfaction), combined with
measures of progression and attrition derived from official DEEWR data. In 2006, the scheme
involved a ‘whole-of-university’ approach, but for 2007 and 2008 it became discipline-based.
Regardless of this and other changes, Swinburne has performed consistently well, receiving
significant funds each year to support initiatives aimed at improving performance in learning
and teaching (Tables 4.18 – 4.20).

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 57
Table 4.18 – University ratings in the 2006 LTPF round (top 10 universities)
LTPf
rATIng
PrOvIder
LTPf
rATIng
1 University of Wollongong 6 ANU
2 Australian Maritime College 7 UNE
PrOvIder
3 University of Melbourne 8 University of Canberra
4 Swinburne 9 University of Ballarat
5 University of Queensland 10 University of Sydney
Table 4.19 – University ratings in the 2007 LTPF round (Bands A1, A2 and B)
dISCIPLIne grOUP 1
SCIenCe, COmPUTIng,
engIneerIng, eTC.
band A1
Murdoch University
ANU
UNE
UWA
University of Tasmania
UTS
University of Wollongong
band A2
University of Melbourne
UNSW
University of Queensland
band b
Charles Sturt University
James Cook University
Macquarie University
SCU
Swinburne
University of Adelaide
University of Newcastle
University of Sydney
University of Ballarat
dISCIPLIne grOUP 2
bUSIneSS, LAw & eCOnOmICS
band A1
Swinburne
ANU
University of Melbourne
UNSW
UTS
University of Wollongong
band A2
University of Queensland
University of Sydney
UWA
University of Canberra
band b
ACU
Curtin University
Deakin University
Griffith University
Macquarie University
Monash University
Murdoch University
SCU
University of Tasmania
USC
dISCIPLIne grOUP 3
hUmAnITIeS, ArTS & edUCATIOn
band A1
Macquarie University
Murdoch University
ANU
University of Queensland
University of Sydney
University of Wollongong
band A2
La Trobe University
Monash University
Swinburne
Flinders University
University of Melbourne
UNSW
University of Ballarat
VU
band b
ACU
Charles Sturt University
Curtin University
RMIT
UNE
UWA
University of Canberra
UTS

Page 58
Table 4.20 – University ratings in the 2008 LTPF round (Bands A1 and A2)
dISCIPLIne grOUP 1
SCIenCe, COmPUTIng,
engIneerIng, eTC.
band A1
ANU
UNE
UNSW
University of Tasmania
UTS
University of Wollongong
band A2
Edith Cowan University
Monash University
SCU
Swinburne
University of Melbourne
University of Sydney
UWA
dISCIPLIne grOUP 2
bUSIneSS, LAw & eCOnOmICS
band A1
ANU
University of Melbourne
UNSW
University of Canberra
UTS
University of Wollongong
band A2
Monash University
Murdoch University
SCU
Swinburne
University of Sydney
UWA
University of Tasmania
USC
dISCIPLIne grOUP 3
hUmAnITIeS, ArTS & edUCATIOn
band A1
ANU
UNSW
University of Sydney
UWA
UTS
University of Wollongong
band A2
Monash University
Swinburne
University of Melbourne
University of Ballarat
USC

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 59
5. Internationalisation
5.1 Introduction
Internationalisation has long been one of the University’s strategic themes, and Statement of
Direction 2015 sees Swinburne staff, students and alumni as ‘international in outlook’. The
2008–10 University Plan expands on this – for Swinburne, internationalisation means ‘…
integrating international, intercultural and global dimensions into the University’s mission,
programs, delivery models, research, community service, and the general staff and student
experience’.
At one level, the University’s internationalisation agenda translates to increasing provision of
education, training and research services for international students, clients and partners of
various kinds – onshore and offshore. This has important implications for student recruitment
strategy and operations, the establishment and operation of branch campuses, transnational
education (TNE) partnerships and research collaboration.
At another level, there are broad internationalisation objectives around the notion that all
Swinburne students are, in a sense, international students. Increasingly, they proceed to
employment and further study in a ‘borderless’ context. Such levels of current and prospective
mobility have ramifications for the structure, content and delivery of the University’s
undergraduate and postgraduate programs. They underpin, for example, Swinburne’s desire
to internationalise curriculum, promote cross-cultural engagement in learning, establish TNE
partnerships, and expand international mobility options.
These considerations apply also in respect of Swinburne staff. They, too, operate in a global
environment, and the University’s objectives in relation to recruitment, research collaboration,
internationalisation of the curriculum, cross-cultural engagement, international partnerships and
mobility programs are as applicable for staff as they are for students. They are objectives that
demand a shared vision of Swinburne as a truly international university, and shared objectives,
targets and responsibilities as per Swinburne in 2015 and the 2008–10 University Plan.

Page 60
5.2 Managing internationalisation
The University established the position of PVC International, late in 2004, as the senior
operative of what became known as the International Division. This was partly in response
to quality and compliance concerns reflected in a raft of cycle 1 AUQA audit findings
(Recommendations 13 – 18), partly a recognition that the University lacked a transnational
quality framework (and strategy to develop TNE programs and offshore pathways), and partly
in response to a 24% decline that year in international enrolments onshore. The primary
responsibilities of the International Division were to:
w lead the University’s international marketing and student recruitment effort, with a focus
on attracting international students to study TAFE and Higher Education programs onshore,
and provide some of the associated administrative and support services
w ensure compliance with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS Act),
the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and
Training to Overseas Students (the National Code), and the AVCC Provision of Education to
International Students Code of Practice and Guidelines for Australian Universities (Section
5.3)
w expand TNE arrangements, and develop comprehensive QA arrangements for them
w establish and manage international study centres
w expand and manage the University’s international mobility programs
These objectives have largely been achieved, although the work continues. In addition to
the consultative development and dissemination of a more clearly defined strategy for the
University’s internationalisation activity, specific International Division initiatives during 2005 –
2006 included:
w establishing Swinburne College, within the TAFE Division, to manage onshore pathways
programs and the University’s English Language Centre, and to coordinate provision of
offshore 2+2 programs (Section 5.5)
w adopting a channel management approach for international student recruitment, including
e-marketing initiatives and agent management strategies (Section 5.3)
w outsourcing enquiry management for international students, together with implementing
a new applicant management system – the Online Application System for International
Students (OASIS) (Section 5.3)
w developing and implementing QA arrangements for TNE partnerships (Section 5.5)
w instituting a wider range of mobility programs (Section 5.7)
w actively participating in compliance audits (Sections 5.2, 5.3 & 5.5)
w formulating increasingly reliable projections for international student enrolments and
revenue

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 61
In January 2007, the Division merged with the former Corporate Marketing and Alumni
& Development units of the former Student Affairs Group to create the International &
Development Division. The expanded Division assumed responsibility for domestic marketing
and recruitment, and for the University’s alumni and development activity, in addition to its
international responsibilities (Figure 5.1).
Director,
Swinburne
International
and National
Recruitment
Jeffrey Smart
Secretariat
Executive Officer, Sue Fujino
Executive Assistant, Vanessa Griggs
Associate
Director, Offshore
Recruitment
Ben McKenzie
Associate Director,
Business Services
Dianne Ruddell
Associate
Director, National
Recruitment
Janelle Hansen
Director,
International
Study Centres
Louise Goold
PVC
(International and Development)
Stephen Connelly
Director,
Marketing
Services
Dorothy Albrecht
Associate Director,
Brand and
Communications
(Acting)
Tanya Lyon
Associate
Director, Business
Intelligence
Tanya Lyon
Director,
Commercial
Services (Acting)
Robert Halim
Associate Director,
Finance
Robert Halim
Director,
International
Partnerships
and Quality
Jim Garton
Associate Director,
Compliance and
Quality
Emma Lincoln
Associate Director,
International
Partnerships
and TNE
Tanya Loh
Projects
Centenary Manager, Marisa Furno
Project Manager, Linda Sprott
Director,
Alumni and
Development
Bruce McDonald
Associate Director,
Development
Phillip Honeywood
Figure 5.1 – Structure of Swinburne’s International & Development Division
The Higher Education Division, through the faculties, is responsible for the academic experience
of international students (Sections 5.3 – 5.5). The Academic Board provides an oversight of
academic quality (Section 3.3). At faculty level an Associate Dean (International) collaborates with
the Dean, faculty colleagues and International & Development Division personnel to:
w develop the faculty’s international strategy, identifying opportunities to grow onshore
student numbers and expand offshore project activity
w develop and implement strategy to increase international student mobility for the faculty
w manage the faculty’s international operations, onshore and offshore
w act as the project leader for selected offshore projects
w plan, implement, monitor and adapt QA processes for the faculty’s onshore and offshore
delivery to international cohorts
In addition to the roles played by the Higher Education and International & Development
Divisions, various corporate service areas have responsibility for managing important aspects
of Swinburne’s activity in internationalisation. These include Student Services, Facilities &
Services, Information Technology Services and Information Services (Section 5.3). As noted
earlier, the TAFE Division’s Swinburne College coordinates provision of offshore 2+2 programs
and manages onshore pathways programs and the English Language Centre (Section 5.5).
Priorities for action
50. Embed and broaden a
common understanding of
internationalisation across the
University, building on success in
international student recruitment
(Section 5.3) and outbound mobility
programs (Section 5.6).

Page 62
5.3 International students studying onshore
Student load
In accordance with the University’s strategic directions and targets, recent growth in onshore
international undergraduate and postgraduate load has been strong (Table 5.1). By 2006,
international students constituted 20.8% of the undergraduate student load (by EFTSL) at
Swinburne, and 53.4% of the postgraduate student load. Corresponding national figures for
2006 were 15.4% and 38.2%.
Table 5.1 – Onshore international student load (EFTSL), by broad field of education, 2004 – 2007
2004 2005 2006 2007
Undergraduate
Architecture/Building 22.6 35.6 65.5 71.3
Creative Arts 322.4 334.8 417.0 378.8
Engineering 344.8 278.3 321.9 342.4
Health 4.5 3.9 2.4 1.8
IT 468.9 306.6 339.1 392.0
Management/Commerce 526.2 635.0 686.7 775.6
Natural/Physical Sciences 9.8 11.3 8.9 20.8
Society & Culture 20.4 26.1 29.8 27.6
Total Swinburne 1,719.5 1631.5 1871.2 2010.1
% load, Swinburne 22.4 20.2 20.8 20.6
% load, all universities
Postgraduate
15.6 15.3 15.4 n/a
Architecture/Building 2.0 11.5 19.5 17.4
Creative Arts 51.6 45.6 49.3 71.0
Engineering 388.0 317.4 294.9 427.9
Health 1.0 3.4 1.7 0.0
IT 255.9 195.9 263.3 433.3
Management/Commerce 316.0 365.4 518.5 548.9
Natural/Physical Sciences 57.5 58.9 62.8 148.6
Society & Culture 6.1 32.3 108.1 13.5
Total 1,078.1 1,030.3 1,318.0 1,660.5
% load, Swinburne 44.3 44.8 53.4 56.2
% load, all universities 34.8 36.2 38.2 n/a

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 63
By country of residence at enrolment, the greatest contributions to growth in the onshore
international student population during 2004 – 2007 have come from India and China –
up 103.1% and 91.9%, respectively (Figure 5.2).
Enrolments (n)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
China Hong Kong India Indonesia Malaysia Pakistan Singapore Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand USA Vietnam
Figure 5.2 – International student enrolments (onshore) by country of ‘permanent residence’, 2004 – 2007
The University has set itself a target of doubling the international student population by 2015,
and the intention is that international partnership programs will provide additional pipelines to
onshore programs. Thus, the strategy is for a judicious expansion of the partnership network,
and an increase in students choosing a Swinburne international partnership study pathway.
2004
2005
2006
2007

Page 64
non-academic experience of international students studying onshore
Current and projected growth in the number and diversity of international students
undertaking Swinburne programs onshore poses challenges for service provision. The aim is
to maintain seamless provision of a suite of interrelated services through Higher Education,
International & Development, Swinburne College and TAFE International (both within the
TAFE Division) and corporate service areas including Student Operations, Student Services,
Information Technology Services, Facilities & Services and Information Services (Table 5.2).
Collectively, these services ensure that international students receive tailored, timely and
culturally-appropriate advice, advocacy and referral.
Table 5.2 – ‘Non-academic’ services provided for international students onshore
ServICe AreA PrInCIPAL ServICe PrOvIder
Recruitment, admissions, arrival registration, orientation, student
support and counseling.
ESOS compliant, culturally-appropriate orientation for international
students studying onshore.
Promotion of awareness, throughout the University, of: 1) the
special needs of international students; 2) the implications for
students of the ESOS Act and student visa requirements; and 3)
the international student fee and enrolment policy which outlines
requirements specific to international students.
International & Development
International & Development
International & Development
Returning home services. International & Development
Central administration systems and services including timetabling,
results release, examination services, re-enrolment services,
operation of a student contact centre, and management of a range
of relevant policies and procedures.
Finance, accommodation, health and well-being, student
development and counselling, careers and employment, and equity
and disability support services.
Enrolment, administration of student progress (including a range of
monitoring services), ‘informal’ support services, and management
of academic programs.
Student Operations
Student Services
Faculties
Recreation services, clubs and societies, and advocacy. Swinburne Student Amenities
Association
Information services and resources (principally via the Library). Information Resources
ICT services Information Technology Services

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 65
In 2004, the University undertook a comprehensive review of services provided to international
students studying onshore. This resulted in the formation of Swinburne International, within
the International Division, and immediate changes in service provision including:
w a shift from a ‘process focus’ to treating recruitment agents and international students
as ‘customers’
w reducing international contact points from five to two, with regional teams responsible
for managing the student cycle from initial contact through to acceptance of a Swinburne
place, and the Student Life team (within International & Development) managing processes
thereafter including enrolment, orientation, ESOS-compliant support and departure
w electronic enquiry management and admissions systems – accessible both by
International & Development and faculty personnel and including electronic copies of all
relevant documentation (such as IELTS documentation, transcripts and letters of offer)
w substantial revision of business processes to minimize bureaucracy from the
customer perspective
More recent improvements have included:
w development of a comprehensive approach to managing agents, detailed in the Policy &
Procedure for the Appointment, Management, Review and Termination of International
Student Recruitment Agents – the University now monitors student satisfaction with
agents via an online commencement survey (Table 5.3)
w redevelopment of CourseFinder to provide prospective international students with a clear
‘doorway’ to CRICOS-registered program information
w adoption of a revised ‘late arrivals’ policy, which has led to improved management of the
cohort concerned
w development of a structured orientation program for all commencing international students
Table 5.3 – International student satisfaction with agent services for semester 1 (S1) and
semester 2 (S2) 2007, based on 5-point Likert scale items from Swinburne’s Commencing
Student Survey
COmmenCIng STUdenT
SUrvey ITem
My agent gave me accurate
information about Swinburne
programs.
My agent provided friendly and
helpful service.
My agent provided fast and
efficient service.
Disagree or
strongly disagree
% respondents
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree or
strongly agree
S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
18.9 20.4 26.4 19.9 55.3 59.6
10.1 13.5 29.8 16.5 69.1 71.1
17.6 15.9 19.5 20.5 62.9 63.6
Further sources
CourseFinder
http://courses.swinburne.edu.au/

Page 66
Priorities for action
51. Obtain ISO 9001 quality certification
for International & Development,
to ensure that business processes
are documented and reviewed in a
structured manner.
52. Implement recommendations from
the current review of Student Life
and its service provision.
53. Monitor aspects of the ‘nonacademic’
international student
experience more effectively – while
the ‘New Student Satisfaction
Survey’ measures satisfaction
with the pre-arrival to enrolment
period and is used to improve web
resources, application processes,
orientation and registration, the
survey strategy for continuing
international students needs to be
refined and systematised.
54. Develop and implement processes
to allow the international student
experience at Swinburne to be
benchmarked against national and
international data – the review of
Student Life is considering ways to
establish an international student
experience benchmark, informed by
the 2007 AEI International Student
Survey.
55. Provide careers and employment
information more effectively for
international students, and greater
assistance to help them find
appropriate work.
56. Work, systematically, on strategies
to promote and facilitate
engagement between international
and Australian students.
57. Provide relevant ESOS compliance
information to all sessional staff
members, and all new national
student recruitment personnel.
58. Implement a structured program
level internal audit of ESOS
compliance.
eSOS compliance
As a provider of education services to international students in Australia, the University
complies with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS Act). Strategic
compliance with the ESOS code is managed by the International Partnerships & Quality Unit in
the International & Development Division, while operational compliance is the responsibility of
the faculties.
The ESOS Act was revised by the Australian Government in July 2007, necessitating a
substantial revision of Swinburne’s policies and business practices. To prepare for the
transition, an ESOS Advisory Committee was established with academic and administrative
staff from all faculties and representatives from corporate areas. The Committee is a forum for
resolving compliance issues and sharing practices, informed by the University’s participation
in the inter-university ESOS network that operates under the auspices of the Victorian
International Directors’ Committee.
Recently, Swinburne’s enrolment scope for international students was increased by the
Australian Government from 5,000 to 7,000. This increase was based on a successful desktop
compliance audit.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 67
Academic experience of international students studying onshore
Because Melbourne is multi-cultural, and because this is reflected in undergraduate and
postgraduate domestic student cohorts at any time, the divide between international and
domestic students at Swinburne is less than clear-cut. The pluralistic nature of domestic cohorts
has led to the evolution of teaching strategies well-suited to cultural diversity. Moreover, the
technical nature of the University’s program profile means that the linguistic deficits of some
international students are less problematic than at some other Australian universities.
International students come to Swinburne via various pathways, and those not meeting the
requisite English language standard (IELTS 5.5 for TAFE programs, IELTS 6.0 for undergraduate
programs and IELTS 6.5 for postgraduate programs) work to improve their fluency in reading,
writing, listening and speaking through the University’s English Language Centre (ELC) within
Swinburne College. After (at least) the specified period of full-time ELC study – 10 weeks for
every 0.5 below the requisite IELTS score – each of the students concerned is re-assessed.
The results provide a basis for recommending entry to a program at a particular level, or for
further English language study prior to another assessment.
TAFE International provides ongoing language support for international students on a needs
basis. This is particularly important for undergraduates in the context of the group project
work and other experiential learning that characterises Swinburne’s Professional Learning
Model, and it is also fundamental to successful postgraduate study.
Outcome measures
Performance data confirm that the academic experience of international students studying
onshore at Swinburne is broadly comparable to that of local students. For example:
w progression rates for international students at Swinburne are 3 – 5% below those of
domestic students, and very similar to those of other Australian universities (Table 5.4)
w attrition rates for international students studying onshore at Swinburne are invariably
well below those of domestic students (Table 5.5), and lower than the Australian average
(17.4% – 18.6%) for international students studying onshore in every year since 2001 for
which data are available
w grade point averages for international students studying onshore with Swinburne are only
c. 5% below those of domestic students (Table 5.6)
w there is little difference between international and domestic students in their satisfaction
with units (Table 5.7), teaching (Table 5.8) or programs (Table 5.9).

Page 68
Table 5.4 – % progression of international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) students studying onshore
at Swinburne, with comparative data for international students at other Australian universities
(All), for selected broad fields of education, 2004 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
% progression
2004 2005 2006 2007
Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne All Swinburne
Dom Int’l Int’l Dom Int’l Int’l Dom Int’l Int’l Dom Int’l
Creative Arts 94.0 92.1 91.3 92.5 90.1 90.5 92.3 83.7 90.9 91.8 92.9
Engineering 86.6 88.0 88.6 84.4 86.1 88.7 83.4 81.9 88.2 86.4 83.6
IT 82.7 81.9 82.5 80.0 80.6 82.7 82.4 79.0 84.0 84.8 77.1
Management/
Commerce
90.1 86.8 85.1 88.2 85.0 83.2 86.9 84.1 83.3 88.0 82.8
Natural/Physical
Sciences
87.4 86.2 90.0 87.2 84.9 90.2 83.6 82.9 90.0 89.4 86.3
Society &
Culture
88.8 78.3 89.1 87.0 81.5 89.4 84.2 92.6 89.6 86.8 94.9
All fields 88.4 86.4 86.5 86.9 85.1 85.7 86.0 83.4 86.1 88.0 83.9
Table 5.5 – % attrition of international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) undergraduates studying
onshore at Swinburne, with c omparative data for international students at other Australian
universities (All), for selected broad fields of education, 2004 – 2006
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
% attrition
2004 2005 1 2006
Swinburne Swinburne Swinburne
Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l
Creative Arts 12.8 7.4 10.2 7.5 10.9 6.1
Engineering 16.7 8.3 17.8 3.7 22.6 11.8
IT 21.3 14.2 23.0 11.8 17.7 11.2
Management/
Commerce
Natural/Physical
Sciences
17.0 10.2 19.7 12.7 16.5 12.6
25.0 50.0 20.2 20.0 22.9 0.0
Society & Culture 29.1 0.0 24.5 0.0 26.4 12.5
Total 19.2 10.1 18.8 9.8 18.6 11.1

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 69
Table 5.6 – Grade point averages (GPAs) for international and domestic students studying
onshore at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007
yeAr
Mean GPA
Domestic International
2004 67.7 64.6
2005 67.0 64.0
2006 66.9 63.5
2007 67.1 62.8
Table 5.7 – Mean satisfaction with units for international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom)
undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, for selected broad fields of education,
2006 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Mean satisfaction with unit 1
2006 2007
Semester 1 Semester 2 Semester 1 Semester 2
Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l
Creative Arts 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6
Engineering 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.7
IT 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.8
Management/
Commerce
Natural/Physical
Sciences
4.7 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6
4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.4 4.7 4.7 5.0
Society & Culture 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8
Overall 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7
1
Based on a single 6-point Likert scale item (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree) on the University’s Student
Feedback on Units Survey.

Page 70
Priorities for action
59. Implement a project to track
the academic performance of
international students and establish
mechanisms to support all students
to develop their communication
skills through discipline-specific
initiatives.
60. Collaborate with other Australian
universities to benchmark the
employment and further study
outcomes of onshore international
students.
Table 5.8 – Mean satisfaction with teaching for international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom)
undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, for selected broad fields of education,
2006 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Mean satisfaction with teaching 1
2006 2007
Semester 1 Semester 2 Semester 1 Semester 2
Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l
Creative Arts 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.5
Engineering 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.7
IT 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.8
Management/
Commerce
Natural/Physical
Sciences
4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6
5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.5 4.7 4.7 5.0
Society & Culture 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
Overall 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7
1
Based on a single 6-point Likert scale item (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree) on the University’s Student
Feedback on Units Survey.
Table 5.9 – Mean satisfaction with programs, for international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom)
undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, for selected broad fields of education,
2006 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Recommend
program to others
Recommend
Swinburne to others
Mean satisfaction 1
Overall satisfaction
with quality of
program
Overall satisfaction
with experience
Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l Dom Int’l
Creative Arts 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.1
Engineering 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1
IT 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.2
Management/
Commerce
Natural/Physical
Sciences
4.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.1 3.9
4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.2
Society & Culture 4.3 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.4
Overall 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0
1
Based on a single 5-point Likert scale item (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) on the University’s
Swinburne Experience Survey.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 71
5.4 Swinburne’s Sarawak Branch Campus
Overview
The Sarawak Branch Campus at Kuching was established in 2000 as a key element in the
University’s long-term strategy to internationalise its operations and provide students with
international living, learning and working opportunities. A partnership between Swinburne
and the State Government of Sarawak, the Branch Campus is headed by a PVC and Chief
Executive, Sarawak who reports to the DVC Academic in Melbourne and to a local board of
management as Chief Executive (Figure 5.3).
Human
Resources
Finance &
Administration
Administration
IT & Technical
Services
Facilities &
Services
Student
Administration
Audit and
Compliance
Board of Directors
PVC and
Chief Executive
Marketing &
Communication
Executive
Committee
Council
Academic
Board
Professional Learning
& Quality Assurance
School of Business
School of Language
& Foundation
Figure 5.3 – Organisational arrangements for the Sarawak Branch Campus
Academic
Vice-Chancellor
Deputy
Vice-Chancellor
Information Resources
School of IT
& Multimedia
School of Engineering

Page 72
As a private, government-linked tertiary provider, the Sarawak Branch Campus is constituted
in Malaysia under two acts:
w Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak is a body politic established under the
Malaysian Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996, and its constitution states
that “… the governing authority of Swinburne Sarawak shall be the Swinburne Sarawak
Council”. The Council deals with social and political functions such as, for example,
appointing the Chief Executive, the Director Academic and the Director Administration;
conferring awards; the receipt of Academic Board reports, and so forth.
w Swinburne Sarawak Sdn Bhd is a body corporate established under the Malaysian
Companies Act 1965 for the purpose of administering Swinburne Sarawak, and the legal
entity that enters into necessary arrangements. The Constitution states that “…Swinburne
Sarawak Council (is) established by the Company…”. This company (Swinburne Sarawak
Sdn Bhd) is the legal entity dealing with, for example, contracts and all manner of legal
issues, including record-keeping.
A third instrument, the Joint Venture Agreement for the Delivery of Academic Programmes
and the Conduct of Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak Campus), governs the
relationship between Swinburne University of Technology and the Branch Campus. The
Branch Campus is licensed by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education to deliver programs
accredited and quality assured by the University.
The Deputy Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic, PVC International
& Development and PVC Sarawak have all held positions on the Council and Boards of the
Branch Campus. The Vice-Chancellor also chairs a Sarawak Reference Group, constituted of
senior personnel in Melbourne, to monitor all issues relating to the Branch Campus.
The Sarawak Branch Campus offers vocationally-oriented undergraduate degrees in
engineering, business, IT and multimedia, together with postgraduate research programs at
PhD and masters levels in these disciplines. Other programs available include diplomas in
business and information systems and electronic engineering, which articulate into degrees.
Additionally, foundation programs in business/IT and engineering/science are offered, together
with English proficiency programs, to assist student passage to Higher Education.
As of January 2008, the student population at Sarawak (including full-time foundation studies
students) is c. 2,020 and it will grow to c. 2,700 by August. The profile in engineering, IT and
business complements the profile at Swinburne’s Hawthorn campus (Table 5.10).

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 73
Table 5.10 – Student headcount at Sarawak, by broad field of education, 2004 – 2007 1
broad field of education 2004 2005 2006 2007
Engineering 197 267 367 507
IT 74 78 131 129
Management/Commerce 187 277 511 654
Total 458 622 1,009 1,290
1
Excludes Foundation Studies and Preparatory English students. Figures for 2004 – 06 are for the full year; the
figure for 2007 is as reported to DEST as at 31 August 2007.
It is an important goal at Sarawak to build the number of enrolled Bumiputra (Malay and
indigenous) students, and there has been steady growth from 229 in Semester 1 2004 to
314 in Semester 2 2007 across all of the programs offered, including foundation programs.
Within the Bumiputra cohort, the Malay, Melanau, Iban and Bidayuh groups each account
presently for more than 50 enrolments. International enrolments also contribute to the
diversity of the student body – the 282 international students enrolled in Semester 2 2007
represented 14.1% of the total load. They come from 31 countries outside Malaysia including
Indonesia (80 students), China (32), Sri Lanka (22) and Kenya (20).
Late in 2005, Swinburne Sarawak embarked on a campus development worth c. RM110M
(c. AUD $40M). Included in the development are seven new buildings with many engineering,
science and computer laboratories, and specialist research facilities – there is a developing
research culture at Sarawak with a specific focus on meeting industry needs. Additionally,
the development includes a multi-storey car park, two blocks of student residences, a lecture
theatre and a multi-purpose hall for sport & recreation. This development will accommodate
an anticipated doubling of enrolments by 2010.
The programs offered at Sarawak are sourced directly from Australia. Degrees are awarded by
the University, giving Malaysian and international students at Sarawak the opportunity to obtain
an Australian qualification that is also recognised by local authorities. As well, students can opt to
complete their studies in Melbourne to take advantage of the additional majors available.

Page 74
Further sources
Sarawak QA Procedure
http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/quasys/
SwinburneUniversityOfTechnology
SarawakSUTSAcademicQuality
AssuranceQAPolicyProcedures.htm
QA at Sarawak
In keeping with cycle 1 audit Recommendations 14 and 15, policies, procedures and
operations at Sarawak have become much more closely aligned with those of the University
as a whole in recent years. The academic QA process is described in the Sarawak QA
Procedure. Targeted at units of study, the aim is to ensure that new units introduced at
Sarawak quickly reach equivalence with their Melbourne counterparts, and that they maintain
that equivalence thereafter.
Units follow Developmental QA Procedures when: 1) taught for the first time at Sarawak; 2)
taught by a staff member who has not previously taught the unit; 3) the unit involves a finalyear
“capstone” project that provides critical professional learning; or 4) where there is an
agreement that the unit warrants close monitoring. For such units, the (Melbourne-based) unit
coordinator must:
w confirm unit details including curriculum details, recommended texts, reading lists, and
the assessment outline and schedule
w provide general academic support, including teaching materials
w make a QA visit to Sarawak, if the unit is being delivered for the first time
w moderate major and final assessments
w check-mark a sample of final assessments
All units not assigned ‘developmental’ QA status are subject to less intensive ‘ongoing QA
procedures’. Here, moderation of major assessments is not required and reduced academic
support is provided by the unit coordinator. As well, some variation is allowed between
Melbourne and Sarawak at unit level, provided that learning outcomes remain equivalent.
The Director of Quality Assurance at Sarawak, a Melbourne-based appointment, manages dayto-day
operation of the Sarawak QA process. The role ensures that the QA policy is operating
as intended, maintains the QA website, and resolves or refers operational issues as they arise,
with the support of faculty-based program and unit coordinators who manage QA at program
and unit level. Apart from these appointments, other recent QA developments at Sarawak have
included:
w appointment of an Education Quality Coordinator to organise and deliver professional
development related to teaching and learning – this position is also responsible for
organising peer reviews of Sarawak teaching staff and monitoring the outcomes and
follow-up of Student Feedback on Unit (SFU) evaluations
w establishment of closer working relationships between Melbourne and Sarawak corporate
areas, to facilitate the sharing of quality improvement initiatives
w a Sarawak self-review implemented along the lines of the unit reviews conducted in
Melbourne (Section 3.8)

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 75
w a 2007 benchmarking project with other Australian universities operating branch
campuses in Malaysia
w formalising the relationship between Sarawak and the University’s Academic Board
w alignment of Melbourne and Sarawak planning processes
w the progressive adoption of similar stakeholder surveys at Melbourne and Sarawak, to
facilitate internal benchmarking
Academic performance indicators for Sarawak
Grade point averages have remained steady at Sarawak during 2004 – 2006 (range = 59.8 –
60.7), c. 5% below grade point averages for Australian-based international students. Overall,
progression rates have risen slowly over the same period, but they remain below those of
international students studying in Melbourne (Table 5.11).
Student satisfaction with units and teaching are at comparable levels with those of international
students studying in Melbourne (Tables 5.12 & 5.13), but satisfaction at program level is lower –
presumably because of lesser satisfaction with facilities and services (Table 5.14).
Table 5.11 – % progression for Sarawak students and international (Int’l) students studying
onshore at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
% progression
2004 2005 2006
Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l
Engineering 83.8 88.0 84.2 86.1 82.2 81.9
IT 76.4 81.9 81.8 80.6 76.2 79.0
Management/Commerce 72.9 86.8 75.8 85.0 77.1 84.1
Table 5.12 – Mean satisfaction with units for Sarawak undergraduates compared with
international (Int’l) undergraduates studying in Melbourne, for selected broad fields of
education, 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Mean satisfaction with unit 1
2007 Semester 1 2007 Semester 2
Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l
Engineering 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7
IT 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.8
Management/Commerce 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.6
Natural/Physical Sciences 4.5 4.7 4.6 5.0
Society & Culture 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.8
Overall 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7
1
Based on a single 6-point Likert scale item (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree) on the University’s Student
Feedback on Units Survey.

Page 76
Priorities for action
61. Establish a structured approach
to monitor academic performance
indicators at Sarawak, and furnish
regular performance reports to
Academic Board.
62. Improve corporate service provision
at Sarawak, and align it more
closely with service provision in
Melbourne – staff and student
focus groups at Sarawak indicate
some present dissatisfaction with
various services, and relevant
recommendations from a December
2007 review of Student Operations
are currently under consideration
for action.
63. Work to establish a research
reputation to position Swinburne
Sarawak as an Asian ‘university of
choice’.
64. Support academic staff to
participate more fully in curriculum
development, curriculum
internationalisation (Section 5.8)
and research, capitalising on
the recent rapid maturing of the
academic culture at Sarawak.
Table 5.13 – Mean satisfaction with teaching for Sarawak undergraduates compared with
international (Int’l) undergraduates studying in Melbourne, for selected broad fields of
education, 2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Mean satisfaction with unit 1
2007 Semester 1 2007 Semester 2
Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l
Engineering 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.7
IT 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.8
Management/Commerce 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.6
Natural/Physical Sciences 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.0
Society & Culture 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.8
Overall 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7
1
Based on a single 6-point Likert scale item (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree) on the University’s Student
Feedback on Units Survey.
Table 5.14 – Mean program-level undergraduate satisfaction at Sarawak compared with that of
international (Int’l) undergraduates studying in Melbourne, for selected broad fields of education,
2007
brOAd fIeLd
Of edUCATIOn
Recommend
program to others
Recommend
Swinburne to others
Mean satisfaction 1
Overall satisfaction
with quality of
program
Overall satisfaction
with experience
Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l Sarawak Int’l
Engineering 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.2 3.7 4.0 3.7 4.1
IT 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.2 3.7 4.0 3.6 4.2
Management/
Commerce
3.6 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.9
Overall 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6 4.0
1
Based on a single 5-point Likert scale item (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) on the University’s
Swinburne Experience Survey.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 77
5.5 Transnational education (TNE) partnerships
Tne strategy and current partnerships
As indicated in Swinburne in 2015 and the 2008–10 University Plan, Swinburne is working to
become a ‘partner of choice’ for educational institutions and other organisations around the
world – cooperating in staff and student exchange, joint program delivery and collaborative
research. The formal establishment of TNE partnerships is important in this, and Swinburne
has developed diverse and active links across several countries, with a strategic focus on
China, Vietnam and Malaysia/Singapore.
The intention is to expand the network of partner organisations in the coming years, taking
account of the respective priorities, strengths and complementarities that prevail for Swinburne
and the partners, and appropriate due diligence considerations and contractual arrangements.
However, excluding 2+2 programs for which the first two years are delivered offshore by the
TAFE Division (and managed via the TAFE QA system and outside the scope of the cycle 2 audit),
Swinburne had just six TNE partnerships for program delivery in 2007 (Table 5.15).
Table 5.15 – Summary details for Swinburne’s Higher Education TNE programs
OffShOre PArTner PrOgrAm(S) deSCrIPTIOn
City University Hong Kong B Design 3rd year of program; delivered and
assessed by Swinburne staff.
Vocational Training Council,
Hong Kong
Limkokwing University College
of Creative Technology,
Malaysia
Executive Counselling &
Training Academy Singapore
(ECTA)
B Sc (IT) 3rd year of program; delivered and
assessed by Swinburne staff.
B Design
(Industrial Design)
Grad Cert/Dip/
Masters Soc Sci
Professional
Counselling
Vietnam Breweries Limited Grad Dip Bus
Management
National Economics University
(NEU) Vietnam
Master of
International
Accounting
3rd year of program; delivered and
assessed by Limkokwing staff.
Full program, with no equivalent offered
in Australia; delivered and assessed by
ECTA staff.
Full program offered; delivered and
assessed by Swinburne staff. Not active
in 2008.
Full program offered; delivered jointly by
Swinburne & NEU staff and assessed by
Swinburne staff.
2007
enrOLmenTS
(n)
77
160
13
184
23
145

Page 78
Further sources
SILC Framework
www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/
spq/auqaportfolio/SILC.pdf
International Agreements Policy
www.international.swinburne.edu.au/
agreements
Tne quality assurance
A framework for TNE partnerships was developed in 2005, in accordance with
Recommendation 18 in the University’s cycle 1 AUQA report and with the assistance of
Commonwealth funding. In developing the framework, various external standards were
considered – for example, the AVCC Code of Practice and Guidelines for Australian Universities
for the Provision of Education to Overseas Students. The framework has subsequently been
refined, published internationally, and presented at workshops. Based on the key issues
of Strategy, Intellectual Property, Logistics and Customer Service, the SILC Framework is
now the foundation for new TNE approvals and review procedures, as documented in the
University’s International Agreements Policy & Procedure (approved in 2007).
Management of TNE programs is divided into three stages – initiation, program management
and review. The International Partnerships & Quality Unit in the International & Development
Division has oversight of the initiation and review stages. The faculties, primarily through
designated program managers and the Associate Deans International, manage the programs.
The International Agreements Policy & Procedure documents strategic and business case
requirements for initiating a TNE project. Thus, it covers due diligence, government approvals,
market analysis, risk analysis, budgeting, contractual agreements, and contract review
requirements. In addition, an education plan is required that includes:
w staff development arrangements
w QA systems for assessment
w program evaluations
w student feedback processes
All projects must be approved by the faculties to be involved, by other faculties currently
running programs in the same country, and by the DVC Academic, and the education plan
must be approved by Academic Board. Ultimately, the PVC International & Development must
approve documentation before an agreement can be finalised.
International Partnerships & Quality has developed many resources to support TNE programs,
and these are included on a new International Agreements Website to be launched in March
2008. The website provides guidelines for a wide range of international agreements, including
TNE programs and articulation arrangements.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 79
Since 2006, all TNE programs must undergo an evidence-based annual self-review based on
an Annual Review of International Partnerships template. Issues covered include marketing
and recruitment, academic procedures, student experience, staffing and QA. In 2007, an
audit of the Master of International Accounting (MIntA) program in Vietnam was conducted
by International Partnerships & Quality on the basis of the annual self-review requirements.
It involved interviews with stakeholders including students and staff from Swinburne and the
TNE partner, the National Economics University (NEU).
Following annual self-reviews and audits, program coordinators work with International
Partnerships & Quality to prepare action plans to address any issues identified. An annual
report is also prepared, and presented to the University’s International Programs Committee
and Academic Board.
Priorities for action
65. Incorporate offshore site visits into
annual reviews of international
partnerships, along the lines of the
2007 MintA review.
66. Review the impact of the
Professional Learning Model on TNE
programs, to identify any issues that
may impact on program quality.
67. Articulate performance
requirements and indicators
in TNE contracts, and include
consideration of these in ongoing
review of performance – currently,
the monitoring of academic
performance measures is variable.

Page 80
5.6 Student mobility programs
Mobility programs assist students to develop cross-cultural awareness and ‘industry-ready’
skills in a global context. At Swinburne, the Education Abroad Office (EAO) plays a central role
in these programs – facilitating the student exchange program, study abroad program and
University-wide study tours, and collaborating with faculties on discipline-specific programs.
The EAO also administers various mobility funding schemes, and fosters relationships with
a network of overseas partners. In addition, the faculties maintain a range of study tours,
international work placements and offshore research options, and they are responsible for
administration and student support of these discipline-specific mobility initiatives.
The International Exchange Program, for which EAO is responsible, has well-established
processes in relation to administration, promotional recruitment and student support,
facilitating recent achievements including:
w a substantial increase in funding for outbound student mobility from $40,700 in 2005
to $223,500 in 2007
w development of a web presence including the establishment of online communities
through BlackBoard, Facebook and the “Swinburne Wanderer” student blog
w the recent establishment of an Education Abroad ambassador program, whereby outbound
exchange students represent Swinburne for promotional activities at their host universities
w the SwinMates mentor program, wherein inbound exchange students are mentored by
local students – an expansion of a program cited as a good practice in the University’s
cycle 1 AUQA audit
During 2004 – 2007, outbound mobility on international exchange programs increased by
6.7% (Table 5.16). In the same period, inbound exchange numbers increased by 38.2%
(Table 5.17).

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 81
Table 5.16 – Participation in outbound mobility programs, 2004 – 2007
TyPe Of mObILITy
Number of participating students
2004 2005 2006 2007
International Exchange Program 1 89 68 86 95
Work placement 8 16 39 26
Overseas research unknown 34 55 53
Independent Study Abroad/Other unknown unknown 2 3
STUdy TOUrS, by fACULTy
Business & Enterprise:
Treviso Study Program, Italy 44 did not run 36 did not run
Asia Pacific Rim Business Study Tour 5 9 13 14
European Union Study Tour
Design:
10 11 21 11
Germany Study Tour
Engineering & Industrial Sciences:
19 15 13 20
Aviation study tour, various countries
Lilydale:
- 16 did not run 9
International Business Study Tour
Education Abroad Office:
9 14 14 9
ElectivesPlus@Sarawak - - - 12
Sarawak Study Tour - 8 - -
Global Tech Leaders Symposium - 9 10 did not run
Future Leaders Program, China - - - 17
Total participation (study tours) 87 82 107 92
1 Number of places available in the International Exchange Program: 2004 = 93; 2005 = 73; 2006 = 87; 2007 = 101.
Table 5.17 – Participation in inbound mobility programs, 2004 – 2007
TyPe Of mObILITy
Number of participating students 1
2004 2005 2006 2007
International Exchange Program 76 104 131 105
International Study Abroad Program 63 81 65 71
1
Participant data for other types of inbound mobility are unavailable, including for work placement, research and
study tours.

Page 82
Priorities for action
68. Centralise data collation to track
student mobility.
69. Develop a policy framework for
mobility programs, consolidating
current policies and developing
consistent practices across all
program types.
70. Establish systems to monitor the
impact of mobility programs on
the academic performance and
employment outcomes of students.
Student satisfaction with Swinburne’s outbound mobility programs is high (Table 5.18).
Participants report improved networking abilities, independence and capacity for intercultural
communication, and that their participation has been advantageous on both academic and
personal levels.
Table 5.18 – Aspects of participant satisfaction with Swinburne’s international exchange and
study tour programs, based on 2007 Student Mobility Survey data
ITem
Graduates:
International experience has improved my opportunities of
getting a job.
I feel better equipped in my job because of my overseas
experience.
Undergraduates:
My overseas experience has been an advantage
academically.
Overseas experience has improved my opportunity to get a
desired job.
I plan to emphasise overseas experience when applying
for jobs.
% respondents
(n = 66 undergraduates and 48 recent graduates)
Agree or
strongly
agree
Inapplicable
or no
opinion
Disagree
or strongly
disagree
90 4 6
86 0 14
88 0 12
91 0 9
91 0 9
To enhance the quality of mobility programs, Swinburne participated in two benchmarking
studies in 2006 – the Australian Universities International Directors Forum & International
Education Association of Australia Mobility Benchmarking Project and the European
Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU) Mobility Project. These studies showed that, in
2006 at least, Swinburne was in the top three Australian universities in terms of participation
in mobility programs, but below European averages.
The intention is to increase student mobility and broaden access to all study levels through
various strategies, including via the Sarawak Branch Campus (Section 5.4), the Northeastern
Study Centre (Section 5.8) and the University’s involvement in the ECIU (Section 5.8).

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 83
5.7 Other international collaborations
International networks underpin the University’s commitment to the internationalisation of
teaching and research. Through international connections of various kinds, Swinburne can
ensure that its educational programs and research are suitably benchmarked to international
and industry standards.
Teaching
Of particular note is the collaboration between Swinburne and Northeastern University in the
United States. Early in 2007, Swinburne and Northeastern commenced delivery in Melbourne
of Global Leadership Programs, offering international and domestic students in Australia the
opportunity to complete a Masters degree from each university. The partnership is managed
through the Northeastern Study Centre, founded in 2006, which has also facilitated other
collaborations including a Master of Education: Astronomy Specialisation (whereby students
in the US will earn an M Ed from Northeastern and a Graduate Certificate in Astronomy from
Swinburne), and a pre-freshman study tour for North American high school leavers before
their entry into undergraduate programs at Northeastern. Swinburne and Northeastern share
many synergies in programs, cooperative education, innovation and entrepreneurship, and the
partnership is a key to Swinburne’s growing international profile.
The University also works with partners in China (currently the China University of Mining
& Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics and Nanjing University of
Traditional Chinese Medicine) to deliver non-Swinburne accredited programs in eCommerce
and IT. The students undertaking these Collaborative Articulation Programs (CAPs) – c. 470 in
2007 – are not enrolled at Swinburne, but they are on a pathway to a Swinburne award with
appropriate QA and credit transfer arrangements in place.
Thus, the CAPs are mutually beneficial. For students, they provide opportunities for
international mobility and the chance to complete two qualifications at two universities. For
staff, there are opportunities for academic exchange and collaborative research.
research
An international research profile is central to the Swinburne in 2015 vision (Section 1.1). This
is because the international assessment of university quality, such as through the various
ranking schemes, is primarily driven by research performance and connections.
At Swinburne, the dynamic of research internationalisation is driven both centrally and at
academic unit level. Centrally, the corporate Swinburne Research unit sets the framework
within which the internationalisation of research occurs, while the actual research connections
are primarily driven by the faculties and, within them, by the research centres.
Further sources
Northeastern Study Centre
www.international.swinburne.edu.au/
northeastern/

Page 84
Currently, Swinburne Research is formulating policies that will determine the guidelines for
establishing, managing and reviewing the University’s research centres. Each faculty (and
each research centre) has been set individually-negotiated targets for research performance,
and these targets have implications for the internationalisation of research and the publication
of research findings in international forums. The targets are integral to a performance-based
budget model, and the research centres are accountable through comparative reporting to
Academic Board.
The relatively small size of the University, coupled with the clear correlation between
investment in research and research outcomes, necessitates a tightly-focussed allocation
of resources to support the research effort. Therefore, the strategy of directing funds to the
University’s seven tier 1 research centres (Section 2.6) has been progressively strengthened in
recent years, largely to facilitate increased internationalisation. For example, the:
w distribution of scholarships available to international research students has been targeted
towards areas of research strength
w Visiting Professor Scheme, aimed at facilitating collaboration with world-class researchers
based overseas, is designed to favour the University’s areas of research strength
w allocation rules for research scholarships have been revised to take greater account of
the quality of the applicants’ present institution, with a mid-year round to cater to those
whose academic calendars are not consistent with the situation in Australia
Furthermore, in 2007 the Higher Degree by Research Policy & Procedure was re-developed.
It now includes a number of elements specifically informed by the experience of international
research students, in areas including application, supervision practice, and the monitoring and
reporting of progress.
At Sarawak, a vision for research is evolving on the basis of current strengths and an
appropriate teaching-research nexus. From a ‘standing start’, Sarawak has recently gained
research funding via the Malaysia Pepper Board and the Malaysian Ministry of Science
Technology Innovation, and the Branch Campus is building a portfolio that includes pure and
applied research programs with a focus on industry-oriented research and development.
The Sarawak research vision features strong links with the research heart of the University
in Melbourne, and one recent initiative has been the establishment of a memorandum of
understanding, in September 2007, with the Sarawak Biodiversity Council to fund an academic
and research program that includes student mobility pathways with the Environment &
Biotechnology Centre in the Faculty of Life & Social Sciences. As well, the University’s Board
of Research funding program includes the facilitation of connections between Sarawak
researchers and their colleagues in Melbourne.

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 85
Summary information is provided here for a selection of the University’s international research
connections (Table 5.19) and for international awards and scholarships (Table 5.20).
Table 5.19 – A selection of the University’s international partnerships for research
fACULTy PArTner OrgAnISATIOn reSeArCh fOCUS
All faculties Visiting Professor Scheme Knowledge transfer and
collaboration between Swinburne
research teams, and national/
international research groups
All faculties ARC International Fellowships Funds Australian researchers for
international activity
All faculties Linkage International
Internationally Coordinated Initiative
Coordinates collaborations between
Australian and international research
organisations
Business & Enterprise Babson College, US Business management, innovation,
leadership and entrepreneurship
Life & Social Sciences Australian Centre for Radiofrequency
Bioeffects Research – NHMRC
Centre of Excellence
Multidisciplinary research on the
biological and possible health effects
of human exposure to EMFs
Life & Social Sciences University of Dresden Sensory-related aspects of
physiological performance
Engineering & Industrial Sciences ARC Centre of Excellence for
Quantum-Atom Optics
Engineering & Industrial Sciences ARC Centre of Excellence for
Ultrahigh-bandwidth Devices for
Optical Systems
Engineering & Industrial Sciences ARC Centre of Excellence in
Coherent X-ray Science
Life & Social Sciences ARC Centre of Excellence in Creative
Industries and Innovation
Engineering & Industrial Sciences Smart Internet CRC; CAST Metals
Manufacturing CRC; CRC for Wood
Innovations; CRC for Polymers,
CRC for Advanced Automotive
Technology; CRC for Advanced
Manufacturing
Sarawak
Life & Social Sciences
Quantum and atom optics
Ultrahigh-speed all-optical signal
processing, micro-photonics &
nonlinear photonics
X-ray physics, synchotron radiation
sources, and biological samples
Creative industries, user-driven
innovation, creativity and
institutional economics
Innovation and sectoral
development; research for
government and industry partners;
PhD student pathways
Sarawak Biodiversity Council Biodiversity research
Sarawak e-Science Fund R&D for the Malaysian government
and industry
Sarawak Information Security Research
(iSECURE) Lab
Information & Communication
Technologies
Smartcards
California University of Technology Astronomy

Page 86
Table 5.20 – International connections for awards & scholarships
fACULTy/COrPOrATe UnIT TITLe & PArTner OrgAnISATIOn SChOLArShIP fOCUS
All faculties Australian Agency for International
Development – Australian
Development Scholarships
All faculties Australian Agency for International
Development – Australian
Leadership Scholarships
Business & Enterprise
Engineering & Industrial Sciences
Information & Communication
Technologies
All faculties
Swinburne International
All faculties
Swinburne Research
Swinburne International
All faculties
Swinburne Research
All faculties
Swinburne Research
All faculties
Swinburne Research
All faculties
Swinburne Research
AusAID funds > 100 students
from 17 countries annually for
postgraduate study at Swinburne
AusAID funds students for
postgraduate study at Swinburne,
and a Leadership Development
Program
Australia–Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development –
Australian Partnership Scholarships
Australian and Indonesian Governments fund students for postgraduate
study at Swinburne in economic governance and education
Endeavour Awards Program –
Australian Government
Endeavour International
Postgraduate Research Scholarship
Chancellor’s Centenary Research
Scholarships
Merit-based program for leading
researchers, executives and students
to undertake study, research and
professional development
Scholarships for international
students in Swinburne’s doctoral
and Masters by Research programs
Stipend, establishment grant
and overseas placement for PhD
students
Australian Postgraduate Awards Stipend and tuition fee scholarship
for Australian citizens and
permanent residents who are PhD
and Masters by Research students
Swinburne University Centenary
Postgraduate Research Awards
/ Vice Chancellor’s Centenary
Research Scholarships
Stipend and tuition fee scholarships
for local and international students
in PhD and Masters by Research
programs
Centenary Tuition Fee Scholarships Tuition fee exemption for local and
international students in PhD and
Masters by Research programs

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 87
benchmarking
The international benchmarking opportunities afforded by the University’s active
participation in the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU) and Association of
Commonwealth Universities (ACU) have been productive (Table 5.21). Recently, Swinburne has
participated in two benchmarking exercises with ECIU partners, one on student mobility and
the other on the entrepreneurial characteristics of students.
The University participates actively in the ACU benchmarking round in most years – topics
covered have been as diverse as ‘estates and facilities management’, ‘widening opportunities’,
‘recruitment and retention of staff’, ‘branding’ and ‘strategic planning’. In the case of the
last-named, a number of improvements were made to the University’s planning processes on
the basis of the benchmarking report. These included the incorporation of a comprehensive
environmental scanning process into the annual planning cycle, based on ‘drivers of change’
and their perceived ramifications for education and research.
Table 5.21 – A selection of the University’s international partnerships for benchmarking,
moderation and other purposes
fACULTy/COrPOrATe UnIT PArTner OrgAnISATIOn fOCUS
All faculties
International & Development
All faculties
International & Development
All faculties
All corporate units
European Consortium of Innovative
Universities
International Education Association
of Australia
Association of Commonwealth
Universities (ACU)
Business & Enterprise Association of MBAs (AMBA)
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business International
(AACSB)
European Foundation of
Management Development
Business & Enterprise
Design
Information & Communication
Technologies
Business & Enterprise Kuala Lumpur Infrastructure
University College
Benchmarking; staff & student
mobility programs; industry links;
entrepreneurship; quality
Benchmarking; professional
development and multi-sectoral
alignment of universities,
government & community
Benchmarking; Commonwealth-level
consultation
Business programs & MBA school
accreditation (preparations inprogress)
Malaysia’s Lim Kok Wing University Program moderation
Business & Enterprise Nirwana College School of Business
& Law, Malaysia
Program moderation
Program moderation
Priorities for action
71. Establish processes to ensure
that the currency of the
University’s credit transfer
database is maintained, including
for international Collaborative
Articulation Programs (CAPs).
72. Strengthen research links between
Swinburne and ECIU member
universities – the PVC Research,
DVC Academic and other senior
staff will visit a range of universities
in the United Kingdom, Germany,
Holland and Denmark for this
purpose in 2008.
73. Develop a strategy to expand links
with technology transfer countries
such as China (leveraging off
existing relationships) and India
to identify research training and
research collaboration opportunities.
74. Enhance the Visiting Professors
Scheme, through funding provided
by the Board of Research and
strengthened links with national
and international philanthropic
organisations.
75. Finalise, in 2008, acquisition
arrangements for major items
of research equipment for the
Advanced Technology Building –
funding of $40M has been set aside
for this purpose, with selection
criteria including the potential for
differentiation and thus international
collaboration (Section 4.8).

Page 88
5.8 Internationalisation of the curriculum
The University follows the OECD definition of curriculum internationalisation, with curricula
having ‘… an international orientation in context, aimed at preparing students for performing
professionally/socially in an international and multicultural context, and designed for domestic
students as well as foreign students.’ Thus, ‘Learning for a Changing World’ is one of the key
curriculum areas of the Curriculum Framework Project (Section 4.1).
More specifically, the University’s Professional Learning Model aims to ‘… aid
internationalisation of the Swinburne learning environment and integration of an
entrepreneurship and innovation emphasis, together with an awareness of social difference
and cultural diversity into students’ learning opportunities.’ Examples of current practice in
this area include:
w using international terminology, symbols and standards in many discipline areas
and programs
w adopting problem-based pedagogical approaches rather than content-specific and
memory-based approaches, to prepare students to apply their knowledge and skills
in different environments
w cross-border curriculum accreditation to facilitate credential portability
w cooperative education strategies to prepare graduates for work in different settings
w learning and teaching materials, including case studies, drawn from different
global settings
w international staff and student exchanges
w joint program offerings with offshore partners, such as through Swinburne’s
Northeastern University partnership (Section 5.8)
w using collaborative projects that promote independent and transferable learning
and employment skills
w staff and student involvement in activities run by international professional societies
w inclusion of cultural studies in the curriculum, sometimes supported by tuition in
foreign languages
w adopting teaching styles sensitive to cultural context and preferred learning styles

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 89
In 2007, the University initiated a project, through the Deputy Deans Committee, to establish a
more systematised approach to the internationalisation of curriculum. This project is ongoing,
and its principal objectives are to:
w develop audit instruments to assess the scale of curriculum internationalisation across
faculties, disciplines and programs
w raise the awareness of internationalisation, and provide opportunities for staff to
discuss relevant issues in relation to learning, teaching and program design
w identify the professional development needs of academic and professional staff
in this area
w identify and disseminate examples of good practice in relation to the internationalisation
of the curriculum
Priorities for action
76. Continue implementation of the
curriculum internationalisation
project, in accordance with the
project plan.

Page 90
5.9 Professional development for internationalisation
Swinburne’s formal professional development for teaching staff has been based on two
interrelated programs: the Graduate Certificate in Learning & Teaching in Higher Education
and the Professional Certificate of Teaching Practice. Both are delivered by Swinburne
Professional Learning (within the Higher Education Divisional Office). The Graduate Certificate
consists of four units – one a prerequisite for the others and for the Professional Certificate,
and also a probation requirement (Figure 5.4). Participation in the two programs has increased
by 33.3% since 2004 (Table 5.22).
Figure 5.4 – Higher education teaching programs for Swinburne staff
Table 5.22 – Participation in the Graduate Certificate in Learning & Teaching in Higher Education
at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007
UnIT
Graduate Certificate
Unit LTS 504
Independent
Professional Project
Unit LTS 503
Assessment, Evaluation
and Support
Unit LTS 502
Teaching and Learning
Methods and Media
Meets related probation requirement
Unit LTS 501
The Practice of
Learning and Teaching
Enrolments (n)
Professional Certificate
Seminar for peers on
aspects of teaching and
learning
2004 2005 2006 2007
LTS 501 29 20 33 48
LTS 502 34 18 12 22
LTS 503 13 14 13 18
LTS 504 8 25 34 24
Total 84 77 92 112

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 91
Swinburne Professional Learning also manages central provision of professional development
on Blackboard (Section 4.8) and offshore delivery. In addition to this centrally-coordinated
professional development to support internationalisation, the Professional Learning Model, and
other University priorities, much professional development activity is faculty-based. Facultybased
Education Development Coordinators (EDCs) work closely with Academic Development
Advisors (ADAs) in Swinburne Professional Learning, focusing primarily on one-on-one support
at unit and program level. In addition, the faculties offer workshops and seminars on themes
such as teaching to international students.
General and academic personnel also participate in professional development for
internationalisation through the annual International Education Association of Australia (IEAA)
professional development program, and through the ECIU Leadership Program. As well, many
participate in internal professional development on specific topics such as ESOS compliance,
leadership in international education and international team-building. Additional strategies are
in place to support sessional staff through the Sessionals@Swinburne initative.
Further sources
Sessionals@Swinburne
www.swinburne.edu.au/hed/ccu/
sessionals.html
Priorities for action
77. Strengthen professional
development for internationalisation,
through Swinburne Professional
Learning and through participation
in the activities of the IEAA
‘Internationalisation of the
Curriculum’ special interest group.
78. Prepare a comprehensive
professional development plan
for Higher Education, through
Swinburne Professional Learning, to
be revised annually and otherwise
as necessary – specifically to
support internationalisation, the
Professional Learning Model and
other priorities.
79. Improve academic support for
sessional staff, through the
Supporting Sessionals@Swinburne
initiative.
80. Integrate professional development
effectively into the University’s
new performance planning and
development system (Section
3.9) – at present, participation in
most professional development at
Swinburne is voluntary and many
staff do not avail themselves of the
opportunities presented.

Page 92

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 93
Appendix Table 1 – List of tables in the portfolio
TAbLe TITLe Of TAbLe PAge
1.1 Portfolio structure in relation to the themes and sub-themes 3
2.1 Recurrent income and expenditure, 2007 8
2.2 Students (EFTSL) in Higher Education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007 9
2.3 Staff numbers, Higher Education, 2004 – 2007 (FTE) 11
3.1 Portfolio coverage of activity related to cycle 1 audit recommendations 13
3.2 Swinburne’s quality management principles 15
4.1 Key curriculum areas within Swinburne’s Curriculum Framework Project 27
4.2 Curriculum Framework Project initiatives, 2005 – 2007 29
4.3 Current professional accreditations for undergraduate programs 33
4.4 Enrolments in Electives Plus units in Winter Term 2007 35
4.5 Work experience in industry, 2004 – 2007 43
4.6 Host and participant satisfaction with the IBL program, 2004 – 2006 43
4.7 Employment rates for Swinburne graduates, 2004 – 2007, from GDS data 44
4.8 % undergraduates in further full-time study for Swinburne other Australian universities (All), by field of education, 2004 – 2007 45
4.9 TAFE articulants as a percentage of the domestic commencing undergraduate cohort at Australian universities, 2004 – 2007 (top 10
universities)
4.10 Students (n) articulating from TAFE to Higher Education at Swinburne, 2004 to 2005, 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007, by School and
Faculty
4.11 Progression rates for Swinburne TAFE articulants and year 12 entrants, 2004 – 2007 48
4.12 Grade point averages (GPAs) for Swinburne TAFE articulants and year 12 entrants, 2004 – 2007 48
4.13 A selection of recent infrastructure developments at Swinburne in support of flexible delivery and the Professional Learning Model, 2004
– 2007
4.14 Undergraduate progression rate for selected broad fields of education at Swinburne and for all Australian universities (All), 2004 – 2007 52
4.15 % attrition at Swinburne, 2004 – 2006, for students commencing undergraduate programs in selected broad fields of education, with
comparative data for all Australian universities
4.16 Mean scores on major satisfaction items on the Swinburne SFU Survey for selected fields of education, semester 1 2006 & semester 1
2007
4.17 % full-time undergraduate employment for selected broad fields of education, for Swinburne and for all Australian universities (All), 2004
– 2007
4.18 University ratings in the 2006 LTPF round (top 10 universities) 57
4.19 University ratings in the 2007 LTPF round (Bands A1, A2 and B) 57
4.20 University ratings in the 2008 LTPF round (Bands A1 and A2) 58
46
47
50
52
53
56

Page 94
Appendix Table 1 – List of tables in the portfolio (cont.)
TAbLe TITLe Of TAbLe PAge
5.1 Onshore international student load (EFTSL), by broad field of education, 2004 – 2007 62
5.2 ‘Non-academic’ services provided for international students onshore 64
5.3 International student satisfaction with agent services for semester 1 (S1) and semester 2 (S2) 2007, based on Likert scale items from
Swinburne’s Commencing Student Survey (CSU)
5.4 % progression of international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) students studying onshore at Swinburne, with comparative data for
international students at other Australian universities (All), for selected broad fields of education, 2004 – 2007
5.5 % attrition of international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, with comparative data for
international students at other Australian universities (All), for selected broad fields of education, 2004 – 2006
5.6 Grade point averages (GPAs) for international and domestic students studying onshore at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007 69
5.7 Mean satisfaction with units for international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, for selected
broad fields of education, 2006 – 2007
5.8 Mean satisfaction with teaching for international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, for selected
broad fields of education, 2006 – 2007
5.9 Mean satisfaction with programs, for international (Int’l) and domestic (Dom) undergraduates studying onshore at Swinburne, for
selected broad fields of education, 2006 – 2007
5.10 Student headcount at Sarawak, by broad field of education, 2004 – 2007 73
5.11 % progression for Sarawak Higher Education students and international (Int’l) Higher Education students studying onshore at Swinburne,
2004 – 2006
5.12 Mean satisfaction with units for Sarawak undergraduates compared with international (Int’l) undergraduates studying in Melbourne, for
selected broad fields of education, 2007
5.13 Mean satisfaction with teaching for Sarawak undergraduates compared with international (Int’l) undergraduates studying in Melbourne,
for selected broad fields of education, 2007
5.14 Mean program-level undergraduate satisfaction at Sarawak compared with that of international (Int’l) undergraduates studying in
Melbourne, for selected broad fields of education, 2007
5.15 Summary details for Swinburne’s Higher Education TNE programs 77
5.16 Participation in outbound mobility programs, 2004 – 2007 81
5.17 Participation in inbound mobility programs, 2004 – 2007 81
5.18 Aspects of participant satisfaction with Swinburne’s international exchange and study tour programs, based on 2007 Student Mobility
Survey data
5.19 A selection of the University’s international partnerships for research 85
5.20 International connections for awards & scholarships 86
5.21 A selection of the University’s international partnerships for benchmarking, moderation and other purposes 87
5.22 Participation in the Graduate Certificate in Learning & Teaching in Higher Education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007 90
65
68
68
69
70
70
75
75
76
76
82

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 95
Appendix Table 2 – List of figures in the portfolio
fIgUreS TITLe Of fIgUre PAge
2.1 Swinburne’s management and organisational structure 7
2.2 Changes in student load (EFTSL) by broad field of education, 2004 – 2007 10
2.3 % academic staff with a higher degree at Swinburne, and at Australian universities (All), 2004 – 2007 11
3.1 Quality@Swinburne 14
3.2 Committee structure of the Academic Board 16
3.3 Swinburne’s strategic planning framework 18
4.1 Overview of accreditation and reaccreditation processes at Swinburne 32
4.2 The Flexible Academic Calendar 36
4.3 CEQ ‘generic skills’ scale performance by broad field of education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007, with the national mean for 2004 –
2006 for each field.
4.4 TAFE articulants in the commencing undergraduate cohort at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007 47
4.5 Attrition rate by basis of admission, 2004 – 2006 49
4.6 Higher Education to TAFE articulation at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007 49
4.7 CEQ ‘good teaching’ scale performance by field of education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007, with the national mean for 2004 – 2006
for each field
4.8 CEQ ‘overall satisfaction’ measure by field of education at Swinburne, 2004 – 2007, with the national mean for 2004 – 2006 for
each field
5.1 Structure of Swinburne’s International & Development Division 61
5.2 International student enrolments (onshore) by country of ‘permanent residence’, 2004 – 2007 63
5.3 Organisational arrangements for the Sarawak Branch Campus 71
5.4 Higher education teaching programs for Swinburne staff 90
39
54
55

Page 96
Appendix Table 3 – List of acronyms in the portfolio
AACSb Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
ACU (1) Association of Commonwealth Universities
ACU (2) Australian Catholic University
AdA Academic Development Advisor
AdrI Approach; Deploy; Results; Improve
AeI Australian Education International
AmbA Association of MBAs
AnU Australian National University
APPC Academic Policy & Planning Committee (of Academic Board)
APQC Academic Programs Quality Committee (of Academic Board)
ArC Australian Research Council
AS ISO Australian Standards (International Organisation
for Standardisation)
ATn Australian Technology Network (of universities)
AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency
AUSAId Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Program
AvCC Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee
(now Universities Australia)
bIT Bachelor of Information Technology
CeQ Course Experience Questionnaire
CQU Central Queensland University
CrC Cooperative Research Centre
CrICOS Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for
Overseas Students
dAC Divisional Advisory Committee (for Higher Education)
dAg Divisional Accreditation Group (now Higher Education
Accreditation Group)
deewr (Commonwealth) Department of Education, Employment &
Workplace Relations
dvC Deputy Vice-Chancellor
eAO Education Abroad Office (of the International & Development
Division)
eCIU European Consortium of Innovative Universities
edC Educational Development Coordinator
efTSL Equivalent Full-Time Student Load
eQUIS European Quality Improvement System
eSOS Education Services for Overseas Students (Act)
eU European Union
fTe Full-time Equivalent
gdS Graduate Destination Survey (Graduate Careers Australia)
gPA Grade Point Average
heAg Higher Education Accreditation Committee
IbL Industry-Based Learning
IeAA International Education Association of Australia
IeLTS International English Language Testing System
IP Industry Placement (Faculty of Design)
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
IT Information Technology
LTPf Learning & Teaching Performance Fund
mbA Master of Business Administration
mCeeTyA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training & Youth Affairs
m ed Master of Education
mintA Master of International Accounting
mP3 MPEG Audio Layer 3 (a digital audio encoding format)
neU National Economics University (in Vietnam)
nhmrC National Health & Medical Research Council
OASIS Online Application System for International Students
PdA Personal Digital Assistant
Phd Doctor of Philosophy
PvC Pro Vice-Chancellor
QA Quality Assurance
QUT Queensland University of Technology
rhdC Research Higher Degrees Committee
rm Ringgit Malaysia (Malaysian Ringgit) – unit of currency
rmIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University
SeS Swinburne Experience Survey
SfT Student Feedback on Teaching (Survey)
SfU Student Feedback on Unit (Survey)
SILC Strategy, Intellectual Property, Logistics and Customer Service
(a quality framework for Swinburne’s TNE partnerships)
TAfe Technical & Further education
Tne Transnational Education
Une University of New England
USC University of the Sunshine Coast
UTS University of Technology Sydney
UwA University of Western Australia
UnSw University of New South Wales
vTAC Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre
vU Victoria University