The Models of Engagement and Assessment Practices (MEA) initiative supports our strategic focus on delivering a clear and consistent student experience.
As implementation progresses, this page provides guidance on course-level planning, supervised assessment, timelines and available support. MEA is being implemented in phases, with faculty-led decision-making and ongoing engagement to ensure clarity and sustainability.
MEA is a Tier 1 strategic initiative designed to strengthen the clarity, coherence and integrity of our courses.
Its purpose is to ensure that students experience what they are promised when they enrol, and that learning and assessment are aligned at a course level, not fragmented across subjects.
The focus is student-centred quality, delivered in a way that can be confidently sustained.
Courses will align to one of three Models of Engagement:
Each model describes a course-level approach. Within each model, there remains flexibility in subject design and pedagogy.
We note that these models will continue to be refined as course transitions progress and insights are gained through implementation.
Moving to one model per course supports the university’s strategic priority of delivering a clear and consistent student experience.
A course-level model supports coherence across subjects, reduces unnecessary variation in delivery expectations, and strengthens the integrity between what is promised and what is delivered.
This clarity helps students plan their time, understand expectations, and focus on learning rather than navigating inconsistent formats.
The starting point is educational quality and course-level coherence.
Designing at course level helps ensure clarity of expectations and alignment between what is promised and what is delivered.
At the same time, courses must be sustainable and appropriately resourced to maintain that quality over time.
Educational integrity and responsible stewardship of resources are complementary goals, both are necessary to support a strong student experience.
Students are central to the MEA initiative.
Existing student feedback and experience insights have informed the emphasis on clarity, coherence, and integrity in course delivery.
In 2026, structured student focus groups and engagement activities will provide further opportunity for students to contribute to how the Models of Engagement are described, refined, and communicated Including shaping the tone and language used to articulate the student experience.
MEA is committed to ensuring that the models reflect both educational intent and authentic student perspective.
Decisions are faculty-led and informed by:
Final decisions follow established academic governance processes.
Academic staff contribute to MEA through established Faculty and University processes, including:
Engagement is designed to be ongoing and iterative as models are refined and implemented.
Accreditation and industry engagement are critical to maintaining course quality and reputation.
Implementation timelines and decisions will account for:
Courses with accreditation requirements will be supported to align thoughtfully and realistically with MEA principles.
Implementation is phased.
In 2026, most courses will focus on:
Only a subset of courses will undergo significant redesign in 2026.
Transition expectations will be staged and realistic.
Planning occurs at course level and considers:
Courses currently undergoing Comprehensive Course Review (CCR) will be considered case-by-case.
Existing CCR thinking remains valuable and will be aligned with MEA principles where appropriate.
Engagement in MEA activities is expected to fall within the level of service and academic contribution already included in existing workload models.
For most staff, participation will involve engagement in consultation and course-level planning discussions as part of normal academic responsibilities.
Yes.
DLT will provide a range of supports to assist course teams through planning and transition, including:
Support is designed to be ongoing and developmental, not one-off. Capability development, including for sessional staff, is part of implementation planning.
MEA defines course-level structure, not individual adjustments.
Reasonable adjustments and inclusive practices remain fully applicable within all models.
Clear and predictable course structures often better support students who rely on explicit expectations and consistency.
No.
While a course adopts a primary engagement model, flexibility within subjects remains.
Contextual factors, such as placements or campus requirements, will continue to be considered where appropriate.
Exceptions may be considered through academic governance processes.
If a course is intentionally designed as In-Person Immersive, its delivery model will be guided by its educational purpose and value proposition, not automatically shifted based solely on enrolment numbers.
Course-level modelling supports deliberate decisions.
The principles are established.
Model descriptions and value statements will continue to be refined through engagement with staff and students to ensure that what we communicate accurately reflects what we can confidently deliver.
Supervised assessment involves assessment tasks where student identity and authorship are assured through direct academic oversight.
It strengthens assessment integrity and supports authentic demonstration of learning in an AI-enabled environment.
Supervised assessment is an important step toward stronger course-level assurance and programmatic assessment.
In 2026, supervised assessments remain anchored to subjects. Over time, MEA will support more integrated, course-level approaches to assessing student progression and capability.
Implementation is phased:
Not all courses will transition simultaneously.
Timelines will account for accreditation, governance requirements, and discipline complexity.