4. Price guide
Original design / brand development $100 per hour
Design based on existing branding $80 per hour
Draft changes $80 per hour
Briefings / estimates $0
Hours guide
This table shows a general approximation of the amount of time particular jobs take. All times shown provide for three rounds of client changes. Actual times estimated may vary depending on
the nature of the work. Any work undertaken beyond the three rounds of client changes will incur an additional $80 per hour.
Type of job Approx. hours Approx. turnaround times
DL brochure (6-page) 12 hours, or 2 hours per page 1 week for design, client feedback and corrections
1 week for print*
Poster (A3 / A2) 8 hours 5 days for design, client feedback and corrections
1 week for print*
Large format displays / banners 12 hours 1 week for design, client feedback and corrections
1 week for print / manufacture*
Booklet (A5 / A4) 2 hours per page 12-page brochure – 2 weeks for design, client feedback and corrections; 1 week for print*
24-page brochure – 3 weeks for design, client feedback and corrections; 1 week for print*
Small collateral – digital ad / web graphics 1 hour per item 2 days for design, client feedback and corrections
* Print times may vary depending on printers’ schedule and production method (i.e. digital / offset printing / large format print and manufacture).
5. KIERAN
DELL
Design
and brand work
The following pages show some more examples of work I have
done in the areas of design, brand and visual ID development,
illustration and photography.
6. Strathmore Primary School
Magazines
1
FROM THE
PRINCIPAL’S DESKTo all members of the Strathmore Primary
School Community.
Rum vel modi seque venim ra
aliquisquam evenien digenih illatem
ad et quid quas doluptat a et quae
nihicip santinctum idi optat.
Um laboreptamus event exerum
fugitio offic totas doluptat optia
dempernatem atur alitaesed mi,
comnimagnat enimaiost, omnis
cuptusa mendem lant omnis
seditatente re nus idem repudae
volum sit quiae. Et desse nobit fugitibus eveliae voles mi, qui
rendici aspidit enti nobitenda sanis eniscii squatis enis raturi
quis aligentiate peruptaectae aut optat.
Um reperfe rnatur aligene sandene cullaut mint et harchil int
illam etum et volorist am et officil essit perem etur, occabor
isquam et es vellesciet venimus vollori asiniende molorro
reseque lacessendae nim aut esectas sus el et fuga. Est ea
ad modition rerunto quatur magnia plitate sequide nitium
nem. Magniatemque pe omnimporibus adit inctiur am quod
qui andel ipsam volora doluptaquis as ea vellecto inctur,
omnia doluptat re ped ullibus dolupic iandaerero velicidis
mo mint, quame idelecuptur, sus consequae sitia conempo
rporitia dit que exero quo cusam hil mod moluptatem quodi
oditin pere pro blabo. Bea velessunt, cones most, que omni
nossi iduciatur, vel eum, quodit ad quam que venim rem
qui odi consequ idernat es re quiae de quo dolores sitiae.
Nosaest, exerum quiae il eati vid min remodit qui si dolore
qui dolorepudi atiae et ut harit ute aut quam faciatendit
dolorporere consequundi con re reius, nestia dolendicae
prorepra accae aut et labo. Evendit, aspiene nis dolorrum
quam, velenda aliquae stibus, sum quam, sequi nusanis
voloratur sequi blaboribus nos dest optat modia nobis
estium re que volupta voluptatur, cus, explabo recerum
quiam, secum facerer estioss imporrovid magnime prepratio
eaquisquati santia perchitatia a cuptate velendia doluptatatem
nem. Itatisit explias quis et quam consect enimporehent
el mos dernam si sum quas re con pre percimil is es et pro
bearum volore enda sint dolupie nihicim quas nullici debis
quo doluptas qui illandam, sunt hiciet antores voluptus
ene eremqui nisciendit volorio. Nequae eati culparum es
eaqui cuptius modit omnihil icimagnis entibus rem reritio
maionsequis a sentiae parchil luptat dolorepta sant.
Liquias imoluptatius exero occullatus eum fugiand iciatem.
Udam, vel et provitam quat faccate eatet ea cuptiaspid que
sed eum necae sitatur ad etur? Olore volore maiosa cus,
audam quis a voluptatessi vel moluptur, cone quam que
pa explit autesse cturion nis dolorio vel minia cullam qui
totae si dolo et velecus magnit enihil maxim audipsam litia
voloreperit modit, omnihit ipit plabo. Ceati unt provid quodi
none destrum enit omnis este incimax imenit apite sequia
illupta tibeaquae cupicimpos arum harum ius, ventius is et,
ut et fuga. Nem ab ilit pe dem quia erovit experro mosam,
quae sim reptam, consequ asimaximpos deliam enis eveliquo
eostescipsa ex et ullo mo coris ducitec uptatiu sanditature lit
Debbie Starpins, Principal
JUNIORSCHOOL
COUNCIL2015
BACK ROW Liam Sacco, Zain Yamak, Emma McKinnon, Luke Mapperson, Andre Colakovski
2ND
ROW Cooper Cuthbertson, Emily Ioannou, Christian Glendza, Jargen Aksakal, Zoe Novacek, Mitchell Egan
SEATED Eden Caruana, Laura Smith, Maya Koo, Rhiannon Stewart, Zoe Soumalias
HOUSE
CAPTAINS2015
BACK ROW Jackson Curcija, Thomas Sayers, Sebastian Gergis, Will Halley, Peter Babatsikos, Tyrese Perera
2ND
ROW
Josh Stakemire, Darcy Cooke, Lizge Erdemir, Felix Morrisey, Zachary Winczaruk, Kaan Gavas,
Aaron Suitela
SEATED Sienna Gauci, Ruby Atallah, Ivy Atallah, Ela Dogruyol, Renee Pocock, Bella Stakemire
46 47
The Buddies Project is a
new initiative at Strathmore
Primary School. This is a
program where grade prep
students along with their
grade five buddy worked
together to produce a large
outdoor installation for
permanent display around the
school grounds.
Working together on a large project
requires co-operation, turn taking,
problem solving, listening, working
with a partner, in small groups and
as a whole class and considering the
ideas of others to name just a few.
Grade five students in particular had
the opportunity to build on their
interpersonal skills by becoming great
role models for their buddy. They were
there to guide them, assist them and
give their buddy the direction needed in
order to complete the task. There were
some really fantastic displays of positive
leadership during these sessions.
This project also included the
Environment and Sustainability
component of the curriculum and
students had the opportunity to
research the appropriate plants to pot
in the tyres and have their say on what
plants they would like to have in the
playground. The Environmental team
will also take their green thumbs to the
plants and ensure they are watered and
cared for.
Fundraising was imperative at the
beginning of this project as we didn’t
have a budget to work with! Students
decided to have a ‘Crazy Hair’ day to
raise as much money as possible.
A total of $650 was raised by the school
community and this went towards
buying the paint and materials needed
to start the project. North End Tyres
in Tullamarine donated the tyres and
Bunnings Maribyrnong and Pascoe
Vale kindly donated most of the paint
we needed. We are so grateful to these
organisations for their support.
We hope the students are proud of
their finished product and hopefully
they have helped brighten the school
grounds for all of the Strathmore
Primary School community to enjoy.
BUDDIES
PROGRAM
PRIMARY
DAZE 2015
YEAR BOOKYEAR BOOK
7. United Arab Emirates
Arabic Reading, Writing and Spelling
English Reading, Writing and Spelling
Mathematics
Science
2010
Ministry of Education Dubai
National Assessment Program
Measures of Student Development visual ID development and brochure UAE National Assessment Program cover design
Measures of Student Development (MSD)
The MSD program is designed to
{ assist with placement into a year level
{ assess performance within a year level
{ investigate development of verbal and quantitative
skills over time
{ assist with subject choice in the senior secondary
years (11 and 12)
{ predict performance in year 12
MSD tests are skills rather than curriculum based. They
are designed to be used in conjunction with achievement
tests (such as class tests, PAT tests) to identify students
working at levels above or below their ability.
Program Overview
There are four MSD subtests with each assessing a range
of general reasoning skills appropriate to typical curricula
in primary and secondary schools. These are:
{ Verbal (V) and Quantitative (Q)
The V items use contexts found in humanities, arts
and the social sciences (HASS) while the Q items
use contexts found in mathematics and science (MS).
{ Abstract reasoning (A)
Items assess reasoning skills in a language free
environment.
{ Written Communication (W)
An essay-based writing task assessing student
creativity, spelling, language and content.
Schools have the flexibility to select any combination of
the above MSD subtests.
Note: Verbal (V) and Quantitative (Q) items are
contained in the one test booklet.
Reporting MSD Scores
Frequency
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Above Level 6
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
Overall reasoning score
ART Abstract items
MS Quarantine items
HASS Verbal items
170 or more160-169150-159140-149130-139120-129110-119100-10990-9980-8970-7960-6950-59less
than 50
Overall reasoning score
ART Abstract items
MS Quarantine items
HASS Verbal items mean 105.1
mean 102.7
mean 103.5
mean 103.8
School Report
Common scales for V, Q and A items have been generated
for the MSD program to allow
{ the monitoring of the performances of a particular
year level between sittings
{ comparing performances by different year levels
within one particular calendar year
{ recording individual student performances over time
All V, Q and A results are reported to the school as
{ raw scores for each ability
{ number of items not attempted
{ scale scores for each ability
{ an overall scale score
Results are reported both numerically and graphically
and sent to the school as spreadsheets. These allow
schools to add extra data and to sort results in any
manner required.
Individual Student Report
An additional service of the MSD program is the provision
of a custom printed Individual Student Report for parents.
Schools also receive an electronic copy.
The student report features the school crest and provides a
{ brief description of the nature of the V, Q and A
components in the test
{ series of descriptors detailing skill levels
{ legend explaining how to read the report
{ graphic display of an individual’s performance at a
particular sitting of V, Q and (if required) A results.
For both reports, an overall assessment of General
Reasoning across the curriculum (GR) is reported as well.
Assessment of Writing (W) is reported separately.
Measures of Student Development
Measures of Student Development
SampleStudentReport
Level6
Level5
Level4
Level3
Level2
Level1
HASSSummary:
TheHASSsection
addressesthe
following
overlapping
processes:
•comprehensionand
analysisoftext,
tablesandvisual
images
•assessmentof
evidenceand
evaluationof
arguments
•relating,synthesis
andapplicationof
concepts
150
130
110
90
70
50
Humanities,Artsand
SocialSciences
(HASS)
Mathematicsand
Science(MS)
AbstractReasoning
(Non-verbal)(ART)
GeneralReasoning
(GR)
MSSummary:
TheMSsection
addressesthe
following
overlapping
processes:
•comprehension,
classificationand
analysisofdata&
information
presentedin
variousmodes
(numeric,tabular,
graphic,text)
•useofinformation
andevidenceto
drawconclusions
andmake
generalisations
•transform,
reorganise
synthesiseand
applydata/tosolve
practicallogical
andquantitative
problems
ARTSummary:
TheARTsection
addressesthe
following
overlapping
processes:
•comprehensionand
analysisof
information
presentedin
nonverbalformats
•synthesisand
applicationof
nonverbal
information
GRSummary:
TheGRsection
addressesthe
following
overlapping
processes:
•comprehensionand
analysisof
information
presentedin
variousmodes
•evaluationofand
inferencefrom
informationand
evidence
•reorganisation,
transformation,
relating,synthesis
andapplicationof
informationand
concepts
FurtherinformationontheMSDprogramcanbefoundon
thewebsite
www.acer.edu.au/tests/msd
OrderingMSDTests
ToorderMSDtestsortodiscusstheprogram,pleasecontact
JohnMorath:
0392775624
morath@acer.edu.au
OR
MalcolmHunt:
0392775574
hunt@acer.edu.au
8. CEED and EPS –
How they connect in your
professional development
1
PROMOTION /
PROBATION
Education Performance
Standards Framework
PERFORMANCE
Candidate
discusses with
supervisor
Candidate
initiates External to
candidate In development –
not relevant for
2016 promotion
Evidence
LEARNING
AND
TEACHING
CRITERIA
Development
opportunities
Faculty
perspective
(ADE report)
External
assessor report
Peer assessment
of teaching
Performance
development plan
Faculty peer
partnership
Self-assessment
narrative
Recent work for
Monash University’s
Office of Learning
and Teaching
2
CEED themes and their
alignment with the EPS Learning
and Teaching Criteria
➊ Design and plan learning
➋ Teaching and supporting learning
➌ Assessment and feedback
➍ Effective learning environment
and support
➎ SOTL, and professional activities
➏ Teaching practice
EPS Criteria
Teaching and Assessment
➊ ➋ ➌ ➎ ➏Matching criteria
➍ ➏
Curriculum Design
Matching criteria ➌➊
Technology and Space
➌ ➏➋Matching criteria
Student Empowerment
➋ ➌ ➍ ➎ ➏Matching Criteria
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
➋ ➎ ➏Matching criteria
Leadership, Mentoring and Recognition
➍ ➎ ➏Matching criteria ➊
Maximising Sessional Teaching Outcomes
➊ ➋ ➏Matching criteria
EPS and CEED are fully aligned and integrated to
support and reward educators at Monash. They
are part of the wider transformational agenda
of Better Teaching, Better Learning, which will
ensure we achieve the strategic objective of Focus
Monash 2015 – 2020, that our education will be
excellent, international, enterprising and inclusive.
As EPS and CEED work together you can start with one
element, for instance choosing a CEED module that will help
you with an aspect of your teaching. You will then be able to
apply what you have learnt from the module to the relevant
EPS criterion in your performance development, probation
and promotion processes, and demonstrate how you have
implemented change in your practice or approach as a result.
Or, you may start with the Learning and Teaching Criteria to
see where your strengths and professional interests lie. You
can then identify the relevant CEED theme or themes that will
help to define the performance development path you want
to pursue and which modules to undertake within a year, or
across a number of years.
The table below lists the six Learning and Teaching Criteria.
The table to the right shows how the CEED themes align with
those Criteria.
CEED Themes
9. 2009 PISA Report – this is an example of a lengthier document, a 300+ page
report containing over 100 large and complex graphs.
Programme for International Student Assessment
The PISA 2009 assessment of
students’ reading, mathematical
and scientific literacy
Sue Thomson
Lisa De Bortoli
Marina Nicholas
Kylie Hillman
Sarah Buckley
Challenges
for Australian
Education:
Results from
PISA 2009
Challenges for Australian Education: Results from PISA 2009 51
The OECD average between the 5th
and 95th
percentile was 305 score points. However, the
difference in scores between the 5th
and 95th
percentile varied considerably within the different
countries. Among the OECD countries, the widest differences between the lowest and highest
performing students were found in Israel (366 score points), France (347 score points) and
Luxembourg (342 score points). There was 325 score points between the 5th
and 95th
percentile in
Australia. For partner countries, the widest differences were found in Bulgaria (368 score points)
and Dubai (UAE) with 350 score points.
The narrowest differences between the lowest and highest performing students were found in
the partner country, Macao – China, with 251 score points between the 5th
and 95th
percentile,
followed by Korea and Shanghai – China, both top performing countries with a difference of 258
and 262 score points respectively between the lowest and highest performing students.
The reading literacy proficiency levels provide further detail about student performance by
describing the competencies students at each level have displayed. The proportion of students at
each reading literacy proficiency level, from Below Level 1b to Level 6, are presented by country
in Figure 3.1. Countries have been ordered by the percentage of students classified as below Level
2 (the OECD baseline), with the lowest proportions of students below Level 2 placed at the top of
the figure and countries with the highest proportion of students below Level 2 at the bottom.
As described in Chapter 2, those students at the higher end of the reading literacy proficiency scale
are more skilled readers. Students who scored between 626 and 698 score points were placed at
Level 5 and students who scored more than 699 score points were placed at Level 6.
At Level 6, students are able to make multiple inferences, comparisons and contrasts that are
detailed and are able to hypothesise about or critically evaluate a complex text on an unfamiliar
topic. These students are also capable of integrating information from more than one text and
can apply sophisticated understandings from beyond the text. On average, almost one per cent
(0.8%) of students across OECD countries performed at this level. New Zealand and Singapore
had more than twice as many students as the OECD average performing at Level 6, with three per
cent. Australia was one of six countries (along with the United States, Finland, Canada, Japan and
Shanghai – China) to have around two per cent of students at Level 6.
Students who were proficient at Level 5 were capable of locating and organising several pieces of
deeply embedded information and were able to critically evaluate or draw hypotheses by drawing
on specialised knowledge. Those students who had achieved Level 6 were also proficient at Level
5 tasks and students achieving at these levels are referred to as top performers. On average, the
proportion of students across OECD countries who achieved Level 5 or 6 was eight per cent. In
Shanghai – China, almost one-fifth (20%) of students achieved this level. Other countries who
were top performers, achieving high mean scores, also achieved the highest proportion of students
placed at Level 5 or 6. These countries were: Hong Kong – China (12%); Canada (13%); Australia
(13%); Korea (13%); Japan (13%); Finland (15%); Singapore (16%) and New Zealand (16%).
It is not only important to examine those students who are highly proficient readers, but also to
identify those students who are at the lower end of the reading literacy proficiency scale. These are
the students who have less developed reading literacy skills. As discussed in Chapter 2, students
who have not reached a proficiency of Level 2 are considered, according to the PISA definition,
to be at serious risk of not being able to participate adequately in the 21st
century work-force and
contribute as productive citizens.
On average, across OECD countries, almost one-fifth (19%) of students did not perform at Level 2
(between 408 and 480 score points). In some countries, the proportion of students who did not reach
Level 2 was twice that of the OECD average–Uruguay (42%), Bulgaria (41%) and Mexico (40%)
are such examples. Fourteen per cent of Australian students failed to reach Level 2, similar to the
proportions in New Zealand and Japan. Shanghai – China and Korea had the lowest percentages of
students who failed to achieve Level 2 with four and six per cent of students, respectively.
Students who perform at Level 1a are able to locate one or more independent pieces of explicitly
stated information, recognise the main theme or author’s purpose in a text about a familiar
topic, and make a simple connection between information in the text and common, everyday
knowledge. Thirteen per cent of students across all OECD countries performed at Level 1a, while
in Australia, only 10 per cent of students were classified at this level.
52 Australian students’ performance in reading literacy
In cases in which the proportion of students in a proficiency level is one per cent or less, the level still appears in the figure but the numeric label “1”, does not.
This convention has been used for all figures about proficiency levels in this chapter.
0 20 40 60 80 100100 80 60 40 20 0
Uruguay
Bulgaria
Mexico
Serbia
Dubai (UAE)
Chile
Austria
Russian Federation
Israel
Luxembourg
Turkey
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Croatia
Slovak Republic
Greece
Slovenia
Italy
France
Spain
OECD average
Germany
United Kingdom
Belgium
Portugal
United States
Latvia
Hungary
Sweden
Ireland
Iceland
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Chinese Taipei
Denmark
Poland
Norway
Macao – China
New Zealand
Netherlands
Australia
Japan
Estonia
Singapore
Canada
Hong Kong – China
Finland
Korea
Shanghai – China
Below Level 1b Level 1a Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6Level 1b
3 13 29 35 17 2
5 15 33 33 12
2 6 17 30 31 13 2
7 16 31 32 11
2 8 20 30 27 11 2
3 9 19 28 26 13 3
2 11 26 34 21 5
3 9 18 28 27 11 2
3 10 20 28 24 11 2
2 12 25 28 24 9
3 10 19 26 25 13 3
3 12 31 35 17 3
3 11 24 31 22 8
3 11 24 31 22 7
3 12 26 33 21 4
4 11 25 34 21 5
3 13 24 31 25 4
4 12 23 30 23 7
4 12 22 31 22 8
2 4 12 23 31 22 6
2 4 12 23 30 20 8
5 12 24 31 22 6
3 14 29 33 17 3
4 13 24 28 21 8 2
4 13 26 32 20 5
5 12 20 26 25 10
4 13 25 29 20 7
4 13 22 29 23 7
5 13 24 29 21 7
5 14 27 33 18 3
2 6 12 21 27 22 8
5 14 24 29 20 5
5 15 26 29 19 4
6 14 26 29 18 5
6 16 28 29 17 4
5 16 27 31 16 3
5 17 27 27 17 5
6 18 30 29 14 3
6 18 32 29 12 2
3 7 16 24 27 17 5
4 8 15 22 25 18 6
2 7 19 32 27 11 3
2 8 17 24 26 17 5
7 22 33 26 9
4 9 18 25 23 15 5
2 9 22 33 25 8
3 11 25 33 21 5
8 13 20 23 22 11 3
6 12 24 28 20 8 2
Figure 3.1 Reading literacy proficiency levels by country