Guideline
Assessment Guideline 2014 January
01
Policy Supported:
Assessment Policy 2014 January 01
Procedure Supported:
Assessment Procedure 2014 January 01
Assessment Policy Exemption Procedure
Audience:
Staff, Students
Contact Officer:
Secretary to Learning and Teaching
Committee
Phone:
See
Campus
Directory
Printed copies are for reference only. Please refer to the electronic copy in
Policy and Procedure Manager™ [the electronic policy management system
(EPMS)] to ensure you are referring to the latest version.
Preamble:
These Guidelines are to be read in conjunction with the Assessment Policy and
Assessment Procedure. The information provided in the Assessment Guidelines enables
staff to implement honest and creative assessment that operates in accordance with
Murdoch University’s overarching ethic.
Guidelines:
1.
PURPOSE OF HIGH QUALITY ASSESSMENT (Assessment Policy Clause 2.0)
There are many possibilities for designing high quality assessment. Various
approaches to assessment are defined and explained below.
1.1.
Diagnostic Assessment
Assessment can be conducted at the beginning of a unit in order to provide
teaching staff with information on what students know prior to the
commencement of a unit. Such diagnostic assessment ascertains the
extent to which students possess presumed knowledge. It can help
prevent assumptions being made about what students know and allows
teaching staff to adapt their teaching accordingly. Diagnostic assessment
may also provide effective feedback to students on what they should have
learnt in another unit. This does not contribute to the final grade.
1.2.
Formative Assessment
An important factor determining learning effectiveness is the quality of the
feedback students receive on their performance while they are learning.
Assessment that is conducted to provide students with feedback on their
performance and rarely contributes to their final grade is known as
formative assessment. To be effective formative assessment should be
conducted throughout the teaching period beginning at an early stage, and
feedback to students should include suggestions on how performance
might be improved. Formative assessment also provides teaching staff
with valuable feedback on what students are learning and how effectively
they are teaching.
1.3.
Summative Assessment
The main reason summative assessment is carried out is to provide
students, academic staff, the institution and employers with evidence of
the extent to which students have achieved intended learning outcomes.
Page 1
To fulfil this purpose summative assessment must be valid and reliable as
well as being systematically recorded and communicated.
1.4.
Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment
Assessment practices of academic staff may include opportunities for
students to develop the skills of self-assessment, which is an important
outcome of professional education and a key skill for lifelong and
independent learning. Students can be encouraged to assess their own
performance, and that of their peers, and to compare their own
perceptions of that performance with the judgements made by academic
staff and by their peers.
1.5.
Authentic Assessment
“Authentic” has a specific meaning in the context of assessment, especially
in professional contexts associated with the subject or discipline. To be
authentic, assessment tasks should be seen by students to be challenging,
interesting and meaningful and, where possible, should be related to reallife applications. Authentic assessment has the capacity to provide
students with motivation to engage in learning.
1.6.
Criterion and Norm-referenced Assessment
Criterion-referenced assessment involves the assessment of student
performance against pre-determined criteria related to the learning
outcomes of the unit. Norm-referenced assessment assesses student
performance against the performance of other students. A criterionreferenced approach to assessment policy and practice is advocated.
With criterion-referenced assessment, the criteria by which work is to be
judged are made explicit and the grade awarded is intended to directly
reflect how well the student has met the criteria. Within a purely criterionreferenced assessment system, students are not judged in comparison to
each other, every student might achieve the highest grade or none might.
In contrast, with normative assessment, marks are awarded based on a
predetermined distribution. The most common form of normative
assessment, sometimes called ‘grading on the curve’ or ‘bell curve
marking’, assumes marks are distributed according to a standard
distribution curve. Certain proportions of each grade are awarded, for
example, one third each passes and credit passes, one sixth each
distinctions and high distinctions. This means that each student's grade on
the unit is determined in part by how well other students on the unit do.
Criterion-referenced assessment is the preferred method of assessment at
Murdoch University because, by definition, it provides students with clear
information on the standards of work which attract a particular mark or
grade. It also implies that final grading depends on each student's
learning, regardless of the performance of other students in the class or
cohort. The literature on adult learning stresses that criterion-referenced
assessment is the most appropriate approach to use when the aim is to
foster individual learning and development – rather than selection and
ranking. Criterion-referenced assessment is educationally sound because it
conveys a clear message that each student can take control over their own
learning. It is increasingly clear in the research literature that 'grading on
the curve' discourages many students to strive for excellence.
Furthermore, under a criterion-referenced assessment system, feedback to
students is particularly useful because the focus is on how their current
performance matches up to initially determined standards - which are
known to them – and how they can improve their performance to achieve
a higher mark or grade.
Page 2
2.
GOOD ASSESSMENT PRACTICE (Assessment Policy Clause 4.0)
Students should have the opportunity to show what they have learned in different
ways and at different times. There is some ambiguity about what constitutes a
different type or method of assessment. Generally, it is not considered a different
type of assessment if the only difference is whether it is supervised or not.
Judgment will be needed in order to maintain the spirit of the policy that students
should have the opportunity to demonstrate their learning in different ways. The
Centre for University Learning and Teaching website lists a wide range of
assessment
types
and
their
strengths
and
weaknesses
(http://our.murdoch.edu.au/CUTL/).
There are many valid methods of assessing student work. Unit Coordinators are
encouraged to vary assessment types over the breadth of a unit. For example, a
student may be assessed by way of research assignments, problem questions,
vivas, exams, self-assessment, peer assessment, group work, assessed
participation and/or work integrated learning. Assessment may also include
individually negotiated tasks.
2.A
ASSESSMENT QUANTUM
The following points specify requirements in relation to the maximum levels
of assessment in a unit:
2.A.1.
A minimum of two assessment items and no more than four with the
volume of each item reflecting its percentage contribution to a
student’s overall mark.
2.A.2.
A continuous assessment item with multiple coherent parts may be
included in a unit (for example multiple short tests/quizzes, a series
of laboratory reports or a portfolio of written exercises, design
artefacts or problem-solving solutions). This will constitute a single
assessment item.
2.A.3.
Undergraduate unit (level 7) assessment quantum (3 credit points):
4000-4500 words equivalent.
2.A.4.
Postgraduate unit, including Honours (level 8 and level 9),
assessment quantum (3 credit points): 5000-6000 words equivalent.
2.A.5.
First year units should have a summative assessment task with
feedback provided to students by the end of week 4.
2.1. Self Assessment
Self assessment may be used to develop in students the ability to think
critically about their learning, to determine what criteria should be used in
judging their work and to apply these objectively to their own work in order
to facilitate their lifelong learning. Self assessment may be undertaken simply
as a learning activity within the unit requirements.
There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to self
promote and Unit Coordinators must be sensitive to such differences and
provide a proforma which increases the likelihood that students are able to
judge by the same criteria.
Mechanisms which can be used include:
2.1.1.
Self Marking
Students are provided with detailed model answers and
commentaries for the purpose of comparing their own responses. In
addition, a marking sheet is provided upon which students are asked
to detail the differences between the model responses and their own
and to award a mark. Teaching staff moderate the responses
maintaining or modifying the marks awarded.
Page 3
2.1.2.
Class Generated Criteria for Self Assessment
Assessment criteria for an assessment item are generated and
agreed by the class in discussion with the staff member. These
criteria are used by each student to develop a critique of their own
assessment item. Both the assessment item and the critique are
provided to the staff member who marks the assignment and then
compares that critique with the student's. Marks may be awarded for
both the assignment and the critique.
2.2. Peer Assessment
Peer assessment may be used to develop in students the ability to work, to
be critical of others’ work and receive critical appraisals of their own work.
Peer assessment may be undertaken simply as a learning activity within the
unit requirements.
Peer assessment must ensure that students are treated with fairness,
consistency and respect by other students and are not subjected to
unnecessary embarrassment. There should be clear guidelines and criteria for
students judging each others’ work. A mechanism which can be used:
2.2.1.
Peer Marking
The assessment item and the assessment criteria are discussed by
the staff and students. There is an agreed understanding as to the
learning outcomes required. Completed assessment items are
randomly distributed to students who are required to complete a
marking sheet identifying whether their peer had met the
assessment criteria. These marks are moderated by the staff
member and together with the peer marking sheets are returned
with the assessment item.
The assessment item and the assessment criteria are discussed by
the staff and students. There is an agreed understanding as to the
learning outcomes required. Each student in a group (e.g. a tutorial
group) is then required to complete an assessment sheet on each
other student’s work (e.g. a tutorial presentation or display). These
marks are collated and possibly moderated by the staff member to
form an overall mark. The overall mark and peer marking sheets
(anonymously) are provided to the student.
2.3. Equivalence of Assessment
Equivalent assessments are ones where each are of equal value, worth or
importance to the assessor in making judgements about a learner’s
achievements or performance. When a unit is offered in differing modes or
locations, there may be valid reasons for varying the assessment. However,
when this occurs, it is important that equivalent assessment is in place. This
does not imply exact or equal assessment. When Unit Coordinators are
establishing
equivalent
assessments
the
comparability
framework
(Attachment 1) should be used to develop and ensure equivalence. Various
characteristics identified in the framework must be equivalent.
2.4. Class attendance and participation
As a general rule, class attendance cannot form part of the graded
assessment. However, there are exceptions to this rule (see Assessment
Policy Clause 4.6). Reasons for requiring mandatory attendance must go
beyond the purported educational benefit to the individual and may involve
(i) statutory issues such as mandatory occupational health and safety
training, (ii) professional accreditation requirement where there is a clear
written guideline from the accrediting body that a minimum number of hours
Page 4
should be spent on an activity, (iii) failure to attend impacts the learning of
other students in for example, team or group activities.
Where class attendance requirements are part of the assessment for the unit,
the Unit Coordinator will give due consideration to the student’s length of
absence in determining any exemption. The Unit Coordinator should, in the
first instance, consider opportunities for ‘making up’ missed classes. Further
consideration should be given to assessing the student under the same
criteria as an External student, prior to providing any alternative assessment
methods.
2.5. Assessed Participation
Assessment of participation may be used to develop in students the
orientation and ability to engage in, and contribute to, group learning
processes such as those involved in tutorials, seminars, laboratories and
workshops.
There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to
engage publicly in certain activities. This does not mean that such activities
should not be required if they are relevant to the achievement of the unit
objectives. However, Unit Coordinators must be sensitive to differences such
as those associated with culture and gender. They must provide clear criteria
by which participation in those activities will be judged. The marking of
participation may often involve elements of peer and self assessment. A
mechanism which can be used:
2.5.1.
Marking participation
The learning objectives for the tutorials, seminars, laboratories and
workshops are discussed by the staff and students. The Unit
Coordinator/tutor provides the criteria by which participation will be
judged, for example, task focus/level of engagement with task,
quality of analysis of arguments, capacity to listen, responsiveness to
feedback/criticism, risk-taking behaviour. The mark awarded for
participation is accompanied by feedback on the criteria.
2.6. Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is an adherence to five fundamental values: honesty,
trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in all work. Academic integrity is
fundamental to the operation of all scholarship, whether it be original
research or undergraduate assignments. It ensures that proper credit is given
to those who do the work and that their intellectual contribution is
acknowledged. It ensures that proper evaluation and feedback of
performance can be given and finally it buttresses the worth and reputation
of academic awards on the basis they have been honestly earned. Murdoch
University regards academic integrity as a fundamental value of student
learning. It requires all students enrolled in the University to adhere to
academic integrity in fulfilling each assessment task.
The University has developed an educational tool on academic integrity which
all students new to the university will be required to undertake. The Centre
for University Learning and Teaching provides further information within the
http://our.murdoch.edu.au/Educationalfollowing
webpage:
Development/Academic-misconduct/
Academic Staff are to be vigilant in detecting and investigating suspected
instances of dishonesty in student work submitted for assessment, in
accordance with the Student Discipline Regulations and Student Discipline
Procedures.
Page 5
Forms of Academic Misconduct include, but are not limited to:
3.
1
Inappropriate/inadequate
Acknowledgement
Material copied word for word which is
acknowledged as paraphrased but should
have been in quotation marks, or
material paraphrased without appropriate
acknowledgement of its source.
2
Collusion
Material produced in concert, collectively
or in collaboration with others and giving
the false impression that the work is the
sole output of the student submitting it
for assessment.
3
Verbatim copying
(Plagiarism)
Material copied word for word or exactly
duplicated without any acknowledgement
of the source.
4
Ghost writing
Assignment written by third party and
represented by student as her or his own
work.
5
Purloining
Material copied from another student's
assignment or work without that person's
knowledge.
6
Cheating in Supervised
Assessment
May include, but not be limited to,
material brought in contrary to
instructions, copying from another
student’s work, seeking outside
assistance through the use of electronic
device.
ASSESSED GROUP WORK (Assessment Policy Clause 5.0)
3.1. Collaborative learning is an important element of the learning process at
Murdoch University. It may be used for a variety of purposes, for example:
a)
as a process for teaching interactive working techniques (teamwork,
negotiation skills, role allocation, task completion and conflict
management);
b)
as a means for enhancing students’ understanding of course content
(peer support, clarification and refinement of concepts through
discussion, rehearsal, and the resolution of conflict); and
c)
as a means of demonstrating achievement of graduate attributes.
Group work, under proper conditions, can support student learning and be a
positive experience. Under less than ideal conditions, however, it can become
the vehicle for acrimony and conflict. It may also impose a host of
unexpected stresses on, for example, students with overcrowded home and
work schedules living long distances from the University. Helpful resources
on good practice in group work assessment can be found at:
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/group.html
http://www.olt.gov.au/resources?text=assessing%20groupwork
Collaborative learning may occur without the product of that learning being
assessed through a group project or group assessment. The skills developed
in group projects, however, are vital in work and community life since many
tasks and projects are performed by teams, not separate individuals.
Learning to be part of a team also involves accepting that a collective
judgement will often be made of the whole project. Where the development
Page 6
of collaborative learning processes, teamwork or joint production is seen as
an important outcome of a course/unit, a well-rounded assessment regime is
expected to include some group assessment.
Where students are required to complete assignment tasks in groups and/or
to be assessed as a group they should be provided with effective material,
instruction and support.
3.2. The management of the planning, development and implementation of
processes and procedures for learning through group work should consider
that students have other commitments which make it difficult to attend the
University outside of scheduled class hours. In units that use types of group
assessment it is recommended that some scheduled class times be dedicated
to group meetings. In-class supervision and discussion of group assignments
should be built into the schedule of classes in a way that reflects the
weighting of assessment allocated to group work.
Staff should provide advice and support to students about the formation and
conduct of groups and, in consultation with students, establish ground rules
about:
a)
the selection of group members;
b)
the role(s) of group members and the responsibility of members to each
other;
c)
the conduct of group meetings – frequency and timing and group
contact outside of scheduled class times;
d)
the management of group conflict (the stress should be on conflict as a
breakdown in the system/process rather than the attachment of blame
to individuals. If employees in the workplace, for example, are unable
to deal with a problem they are expected to take it to someone who can
deal with it);
e)
feedback stages during the assignment period to report group progress
and final outcomes; and
f)
assessing the real contribution of each member to the group project,
(e.g. using individual process diaries, peer/external assessment of
collaborative process and assignment content).
3.3. The weighting for group assessment in the determination of unit grades
requires careful consideration, keeping in mind the Assessment Policy which
requires Unit Coordinators to ensure that they can judge the individual
contribution of each student and that grades properly reflect the levels of
performance of each student. Group assessment, like any assessment must
meet the criteria of rigour, validity, fairness and appropriateness to the unit
objectives.
It is generally preferable that assessment take into consideration the
collaborative process (i.e. the way individuals collaborated during the project)
not just the assignment content in the final group document and/or
presentation. Refer to the Assessment Policy (Clause 5.0) and Assessment
Procedure 1.2, for assessment requirements for group work.
4.
ENSURING FAIR ASSESSMENT (Assessment Policy Clause 9.0)
4.1. Feedback
4.1.1.
Feedback should show respect for diversity and individuality and
should be directed at the work rather than the student.
a)
Feedback should be given to students as soon as possible.
b)
Feedback should accompany the mark or grade.
Page 7
4.1.2.
c)
Feedback should be critical, but supportive to learning, so as to
encourage a student’s confident scrutiny of their future work.
d)
Feedback should be related to learning outcomes and given
assessment criteria, so that students are very clear on what
was and will be expected of them.
e)
Feedback on work should go beyond editing (grammar,
spelling, mathematical notation, presentation) and link to the
broader learning outcomes.
Timing
Where a specific assessment task has a function to improve student
performance within the unit, it must provide informative and
constructive feedback in time to be useful for subsequent assessment
in the unit. The timing of assessment components in the unit must
then consider both whether the students have had sufficient time to
master the materials and skills addressed in the practical assessment
task and whether sufficient time has been allowed for constructive
and informative marking to provide feedback to the student.
Similarly, where ongoing activities are being assessed as for example
in workplace based units feedback must be timed to allow the
student and appropriate period in which to improve this performance.
4.1.3.
As we increasingly use electronic means of exchanging and storing
documents, staff familiar with marking on hard copy, may find it
useful to explore the tools for adding feedback to electronically
submitted assignments available through the LMS.
LMS, is the preferred submission platform system of collection and
storage of assignments. Because the LMS system requires each
student to login, and any one student cannot access another’s
submission or personal details, the LMS complies with privacy laws.
Unit Coordinators should ensure that they upload and return the
correct assignment, and not mistakenly send one belonging to
another student. This can be avoided by including the student name
in the document title.
4.2. Comparability of Marking across Tutors
Unit Coordinators must take steps to ensure that marks awarded by tutors
are equitable. Unit Coordinators shall provide tutors with marking guides and,
where appropriate, solution lists. Where possible, they should also meet with
tutors to consider marking techniques to ensure consistency in the allocation
of marks by different tutors. In particular, the link between numerical marks
and final grades, the meaning of those grades, and the broad distribution
anticipated should be discussed carefully with tutors prior to any marking
taking place. The purpose should be to minimise or to remove inconsistencies
between tutors on the same unit, or inconsistencies from offering to offering
of the same unit.
4.3. Formal Moderation
Moderation is a quality assurance strategy directed at ensuring the reliability
and validity of assessment. It is a process of independently evaluating
whether there is consistency in the standard of marking being applied across
particular assessment components or whether significant deviations have
occurred from some previously defined standard. In a Murdoch context, it is
normally applied in situations where there is potential for the validity of
assessment results to be compromised, or extra reassurance on the validity
of assessment outcomes is required. The details of the moderation process
may vary with each situation.
Page 8
4.3.1.
What are the prerequisites for moderation?
Effective moderation requires: (1) that the objectives of the
assessment component, and the criteria on which marks will be
awarded, are explicit and well justified, and are well explained to
both students and markers; (2) that clear, well-understood marking
guides are used; and (3) that there is a mutually agreed and timely
process of feedback to ensure that corrections to marking strategies
or levels of assessment (i.e. “soft” versus “hard” marking) can be
appropriately applied. Under these circumstances, it is possible to
analyse how significant inconsistencies or deviations from a standard
arise, and to correct errors before students are misled on their
performance by inappropriate, inadequate or missing feedback.
4.3.2.
What is the scope of moderation?
Where moderation is invoked for a unit it applies to each significant
assessment component that falls within the criteria requiring
moderation. The sample size of assessment submissions moderated
for each assessment component should be sufficient to establish
whether significant issues or deviations have occurred in the marking
strategy applied by the original markers. At Murdoch this will
generally be ten scripts or 10% of the submissions per assessment
component; whichever is the larger number.
4.3.3.
Who performs moderation and how do they do it?
The moderation process involves a person other than the original
marker assessing the way marks have been awarded for a
representative sample of student submissions. The person selected
for this role must have assessment competency in that their skills
base should be such that they are competent to detect errors,
discrepancies or ineptitude in the marking process of a particular
unit. The moderation may involve a simple scrutiny of marks
awarded, and the criteria used, without an actual re-mark; a re-mark
informed by the marks awarded by and/or the comments of the
original marker; or a “double blind” re-mark in which the original
marks awarded and comments are not available to the second
marker. In all cases, the assessment is made using a marking guide.
The time taken for these different strategies will differ, and each will
be appropriate under different circumstances. Where there is an
initial presumption of marking problems, or a student has
successfully made a case for a re-mark, the blind re-mark is most
appropriate. Where there is simply a monitoring requirement, for
example in the case of educational partners teaching Murdoch units,
or using Murdoch IP, scrutiny of marks awarded or an informed remark will suffice. For moderation requirements in Educational
Partnerships (e.g. offshore partnerships) double blind re-marks will
not be used.
4.3.4.
What must be done if moderation reveals a problem?
Where moderation indicates a problem, it is crucial that an
investigation is initiated as soon as possible to establish that a
discrepancy exists and determine if the issue is one of marking
strategy or process, or the issue is one of student learning. Where
the moderation affects a unit not run through an educational
partnership, the Unit Coordinator should communicate as soon as
possible with the marker or markers affected. Where an educational
partnership is involved, the School Dean, through liaison with the
Page 9
Educational Partnerships Service Centre, should contact the
appropriate person in the partner organisation to initiate discussion.
The Unit Coordinator must satisfy themselves, after discussion with
the marker or markers, that the cause of the problem has been
corrected and the issue will not be repeated. If, in the opinion of the
Unit Coordinator, the issue will have a substantial effect on student
grades, then corrections to the marks must be initiated as soon as
possible, either by systematic corrections following the marking
guide or by a re-mark. Where an educational partnership is involved
and the students are enrolled in a Murdoch Unit, the Unit Coordinator
must consult with the School Dean who has the authority to require a
total re-mark by an educational partner. Similarly where Murdoch IP
is used in units belonging to an educational partner, the School Dean
may ask the partner organisation for a re-mark.
4.3.5.
Who has responsibility for moderation?
Ultimate responsibility for ensuring that moderation occurs in units
where it is required lies with the School Dean who has the primary
responsibility for the quality of academic offerings within the School.
Operational responsibility will generally devolve to the Unit
Coordinator, unless the Unit Coordinator is the single teacher and
marker in the unit. The selection of markers who will moderate
within a unit must be approved by the School Dean.
4.3.6.
What are the moderation
Partnership Agreements?
requirements
of
Educational
For the University’s offshore educational partnerships, the normal
model is that assignments are marked by staff of the partner
institution and moderated by Murdoch staff, whilst examinations are
marked by Murdoch staff. However, the moderation requirements of
some educational partnership agreements may differ from this
standard. It is the responsibility of both School Deans and Unit
Coordinators to make themselves aware, through the Office of
Educational Partnerships, of what partnership agreements apply to
the units under their management and the moderation requirements
of each partnership. It is also the responsibility of School Deans to
ensure that Unit Coordinators (and other School Deans where
applicable) of units which are part of the course offerings from their
school are informed of when a unit is required to be mounted as part
of an educational partnership, so that the moderation requirements
can be planned in a timely fashion.
4.3.7.
Adjustment of tutorial group means is not moderation
Simple adjustment of tutorial group means (sometimes incorrectly
referred to as “scaling”) occurs when comparison of marks across
tutorial or demonstrator student groups within a unit reveals
substantial differences in the severity of marking between different
tutors or demonstrators over several assessment components. At the
discretion of the Unit Coordinator, the marks are retrospectively
adjusted to bring the group means into line. Adjustment of tutorial
group means is not moderation, since it does not involve any
systematic ongoing sampling for re-marking or scrutiny of individual
marks awarded. Adjustment of tutorial group means should only be
used where there is clear evidence of a substantial discrepancy in
group means (e.g. a range of 25% or greater across groups with
substantial numbers), where there is no evidence that this difference
arises from differences in student ability or engagement (i.e. all
groups appear to be equivalent) and where the overall correction
Page 10
applied for each assessment task does not move any individual
student’s overall score for the unit by more than 5% (e.g. moves the
total score reported on the final assessment sheet from 60% to
65%). The possible use of adjustment of tutorial group means in the
unit must also be flagged to students by an appropriate statement in
the assessment section of the Unit Information and Learning Guide.
Systematic use of thoroughly prepared marking guides and thorough
induction into the unit assessment strategy for each tutor or
demonstrator should substantially reduce the need for adjustment of
tutorial group means.
5.
SUPPLEMENTARY
ASSESSMENT:
Guidelines
for
Unit
exercising discretion (Assessment Policy Clause 11.0)
Coordinators
5.1. It is reasonable to offer Supplementary Assessment [Supplementary
Assignment (SA) or Supplementary Exam (SX)] to a student where they can
demonstrate that:
5.1.1.
They have met a significant proportion of the learning objectives for
the unit and passed at least one assessment item, such that a further
opportunity to demonstrate that they can achieve a pass in their area
of weakness would allow them to progress.
or
5.1.2.
Their final result was a consequence of failure in a single item of
assessment, especially where that item is weighted heavily (e.g. they
pass continuous assessment items but fail the exam).
Other considerations when 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 are inconclusive include:
5.1.3.
Where the student has demonstrated a commitment to the unit e.g.
by attending classes regularly or consistently engaging with the unit
as an external student, and by submitting assignments on time.
5.1.4.
Where their performance in this unit is at odds with their previous
academic record, and/or the Unit Coordinator is aware of reasons
which may explain their poor performance.
5.1.5.
Where the unit is the last unit the student needs to meet the
requirements of their course (major or minor) and/or degree, unless
Clause 5.2.1 applies.
5.2. It is not advisable to offer Supplementary Assessment [Supplementary
Assignment (SA) or Supplementary Exam (SX)] to a student where:
5.2.1.
Notwithstanding Clause 5.1.5, the unit involved is the capstone unit
in a Bachelor degree.
5.2.2.
They have met few of the learning objectives for the unit, or
marginally failed most or all assessment items, or have failed a
significant piece of assessment which has learning objectives
necessary to the student’s achievement of the learning objectives in
subsequent units.
5.2.3.
They did not engage with the unit and/or failed to submit multiple
items of assessment.
5.3. Unit Coordinators must exercise their discretion such that:
5.3.1.
The decision reached is based solely the student’s demonstrated
achievement of the unit’s learning outcomes (as reflected in their
assessment), and not on grounds related to the academic's
preference or circumstances.
5.3.2.
Students under similar circumstances are treated similarly (i.e., that
there is no extraneous bias).
Page 11
5.4. In designing the form Supplementary Assessment [Supplementary
Assignment (SA) or Supplementary Exam (SX)] is to take, Unit Coordinators
must meet the expectation of Assessment Policy Clause 11.2.
Unit
Coordinators
should
ensure
that
the
Supplementary
Assessment
demonstrates the same learning objectives as the assessment previously
failed by the student. In general, if the type of Supplementary Assessment is
to be the same as that previously failed by the student, the format should
also be the same (i.e. if the supplementary assessment is to be an exam, it
should have the same format as the original exam – multiple choice
questions, short answers, essay answers; if it is to be an essay, it should be
the same word length as the original assignment and should be on a
comparable topic). Where the form of Supplementary Assessment is different
to the failed assignment/s, the student must be provided with clear advice as
to the nature of this difference and the Unit Coordinator’s requirements in the
letter offering supplementary assessment. One instance when a different
form of assessment may be required is where the failed component was a
group assignment, in which case an equivalent though individual item of
Supplementary Assessment would be appropriate.
References:
There are no references.
Approval:
Approval Authority:
President of Academic Council
Revision History:
Version
Date Approved
Approved by
President of AC
Noted by AC
03/04/2014
18/09/2013
Effective Date (if
later than ‘Date
Approved’)
Next Review
Date
Resolution No.
(if applicable)
01/07/2015
01/01/2014
Noted by LTC
05/09/2013
01/01/2014
Approved by
President of AC
05/09/2013
01/01/2014
Page 12
01/07/2015
AC/156/2013(iv)
LTC/31/2013