Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December 2014
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 1 of 32
Table of Contents
Background to the assessment and moderation guidelines
4
1
Contextual drivers leading to this revision
4
2
Related documents
4
3
Scope of these guidelines
4
Part A. Assessment Guidelines
5
4
5
Assessment roles and responsibilities
5
Design of assessment tasks
5.1
Alignment with subject learning outcomes
5.2
Criteria and standards
5.3
Early tasks in first year undergraduate subjects
5.4
Pass requirements in subjects
5.5
Additional requirements and conditions within graded subjects
5.6
Compulsory attendance in on-campus subjects
5.7
Exemption from requirements based on previous assessment in the same subject
5.8
Equivalence in assessment across cohorts
5.9
Examinations
5.10 Subject outline requirements
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
6
Managing the assessment process during the session
6.1
Feedback to students
6.2
Remarking of assessment tasks
6.3
Resubmission of assessment tasks
6.4
Maintaining subject assessment records
7
Misadventure, special consideration and extensions
10
7.1
Extensions on assessment items
10
7.2
Extensions for tests and examinations conducted during session
10
7.3
Extensions for compulsory residential school, fieldwork or practicum requirements11
7.4
Extension requests versus special consideration applications
11
7.5
Special Consideration, Misadventure and Extenuating Circumstances
11
7.6
Misadventure at a supplementary exam
11
7.7
Timeframe for applications for Special Consideration
11
8
Grades
8.1
Awarding of AA and AE grades
8.2
Communication of availability of Additional Assessment
8.3
Changes of grade
8.4
Notification of grades
8.5
Timeline for finalising grades at end-of-sessions
8.6
Applying TA grades to an entire cohort
8.7
Applying TA grades to individual students
8.8
Late grade changes
8.9
Reviews of grade
8.10 Grades in Workplace Learning Subjects in Teacher Education Courses
9
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
9
Student Academic Misconduct
14
10
Assessment Committees
14
Part B. Moderation Guidelines
16
11
Background to the moderation guidelines
16
12
Moderation roles and responsibilities
16
13
Overview
17
14
Pre-subject moderation processes
18
15
During subject moderation processes
19
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 2 of 32
16
Post subject moderation processes
21
17
Assessment committee processes
22
Appendix A. Roles and responsibilities
26
Appendix B. Glossary of terms
28
Appendix C. Suggested text for subject outlines on extensions
29
Appendix D. Flowchart Showing Procedures for Addressing Unsatisfactory Performance on
Professional Experience Placement
31
Appendix E. Assessment and Moderation Record
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
32
Page 3 of 32
Background to the assessment and moderation guidelines
1
Contextual drivers leading to this revision
These guidelines, previously revised in August 2009 have been revised in 2014 in light of a series of
major changes within CSU and the Faculty of Education with impacts on assessment. These changes
include the following:
2
•
A substantially revised CSU assessment policy introduced in 2014;
•
A new CSU moderation policy introduced in 2014, along with detailed Faculty of Education
moderation guidelines;
•
Implementation of an online grade system and associated changes to grade recording and
approval procedures;
•
Appointment of Course Directors for most courses;
•
Removal of Program Director roles in Teacher Education; and
•
The Smart Learning project which potentially impacts on the design and implementation of
assessment.
Related documents
These guidelines should be read alongside the CSU Assessment Principles Policy, the CSU
Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects and the CSU Moderation Policy. These guidelines do not
replace any aspects of these university policies. Rather, the intention is that these guidelines provide
additional detail, more specific interpretations and clarification of additional faculty expectations
beyond the university policies. These guidelines cross reference the CSU assessment policies as well
as other policies throughout and it is expected that the reader will read the relevant policies in order to
obtain a full picture. These policies are accessible through the CSU Policy Library at
https://www.csu.edu.au/about/policy.
These guidelines now incorporate the Faculty of Education Moderation Guidelines, which was
previously a separate document. These guidelines should also be read alongside the Faculty of
Education ‘Role description for subject convenors, cohort facilitators and other teaching staff in multicohort subjects’. Cross references to the cross campus role description document have been provided
within these guidelines wherever relevant.
3
Scope of these guidelines
These guidelines apply to all subjects offered by the Faculty of Education in all modes on all
campuses, whether in Australia or offshore. Some aspects of the guidelines apply differently
depending on the mode of offering or the location of the offering and where this is the case it is made
clear.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 4 of 32
Part A. Assessment Guidelines
4
Assessment roles and responsibilities
The CSU Assessment Principles Policy sets out the roles and responsibilities of the School and
Faculty assessment committees, and makes clear that the Executive Dean of the faculty has ultimate
responsibility in applying the assessment policy and determining student grades. The Assessment
Principles Policy and the Moderation Policy also specify the responsibilities of the various
stakeholders in the assessment and moderation processes in general terms. This document clarifies
expectations within the Faculty of Education in more detail. Specifically, the responsibilities of the
following roles are defined at various places within this document:
•
Head of School
•
Teacher Education Leadership Team (TELT)
•
Subject Convenor for multi cohort subjects
•
Cohort Facilitator for multi cohort subjects
•
Subject Coordinator for single cohort subjects
•
Quality Assurance Consultant
•
School Assessment Committee chair
•
School Assessment Committee member
•
School Assessment Committee Secretary
•
Faculty Assessment Committee Chair
•
Faculty Assessment Committee Member
•
Faculty Assessment Committee Secretary
•
Course Director
A summary of the responsibilities of each of these roles is provides in Appendix A.
The Faculty of Education ‘Role description for subject convenors, cohort facilitators and other
teaching staff in multi-cohort subjects’ provides additional detail on the roles of staff involved in
teaching multi-cohort subjects including cross-campus subjects.
5
Design of assessment tasks
The following CSU policies provide specific guidance in relation to assessment tasks:
•
Assessment requirements (Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects, Section 1)
•
Assessment tasks (Assessment Policy - Coursework Subjects, Section 13)
•
Principles of Assessment (Assessment Principles Policy, Section 3)
•
Staff Responsibilities (Assessment Principles Policy 6, Section 3)
•
Regulations governing the review of grades or marks awarded for specific assessment tasks
Assessment Policy - Coursework Subjects, Section 10)
•
Subject Outline Assessment Information (Subject Outlines Policy, Section 3)
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 5 of 32
The subsections that follow within these guidelines provide additional information about expectations
within the Faculty of Education in relation to assessment design.
5.1
Alignment with subject learning outcomes
As stated in Section 3 Parts B and D of the CSU Assessment Principles Policy, it is an expectation
that the description of assessment items, along with the articulated criteria and standards of
performance, are aligned to the learning outcomes within the subject profile and subject outline. It is a
faculty expectation that the subject learning outcomes addressed by an assessment task are
listed within the assessment task rationale. It is suggested that the learning outcomes are also
referred to in the framing of marking criteria.
5.2
Criteria and standards
As stated in Sections 1 and 3 of the CSU Assessment Principles Policy assessment and grading at
CSU are based on a criterion-referenced standards-based (CRSB) approach where assessment is
aligned to pre-determined and defined criteria and related standards of skills, knowledge and
competencies. A key aspect of the CRSB approach is the expectation as specified in Section 3 Part D
of the CSU Assessment Principles Policy and in Section 3 of the Subject Outlines Policy that students
will be informed through the subject outline about the expectations and requirements of assessment
tasks and the marking criteria and standards for each assessment task, including the levels of
performance required to achieve each passing grade in each task.
In the Faculty of Education it is expected that this requirement will be achieved by including
within the subject outline a detailed marking rubric set out something like the following for
each assessment task:
High
Distinction
Distinction
Credit
Pass
Fail
Criterion 1
Description of
the standard of
performance
against
criterion 1
needed to
achieve a high
distinction
grade
Description of
the standard of
performance
against
criterion 1
needed to
achieve a
distinction
grade
Description of
the standard of
performance
against
criterion 1
needed to
achieve a
credit grade
Description of
the standard of
performance
against
criterion 1
needed to
achieve a pass
grade
Description of
the standard of
performance
against
criterion 1 that
will result in a
fail grade
Criterion 2
Etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
Criterion 3
Etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
Criterion 4
Etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
In articulating the standards needed to achieve each criterion at the various grade levels it is
important that you use unambiguous language which qualitatively and/or quantitatively differentiates
between student work at each level. The use of adjectives such as “excellent”, “very good”, and so on
in general results in standards that are open to interpretation by students and markers and are thus
discouraged. In some cases examples of work that illustrate different standards may be used to help
scaffold students’ understanding and interpretation of statements about performance standards.
Numeric values for each grade level are not required on a rubric.. Weighting of each criteria is not
required, but may be included if the teaching team agrees.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 6 of 32
Subject Convenors/Coordinators should ensure that any penalties to be applied to a student’s work
(e.g. for not meeting the word limit, or late submission) are clearly explained in the Subject Outline.
Online Workshops explaining the intentions of the CRSB assessment policy and providing guidance
with the articulation of criteria and standards, along with examples of assessment tasks in a range of
discipline areas with complete rubrics, can be found within the CSU Assessment and Moderation
resources site at http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/assessment-and-moderation-at-csu/home.
5.3
Early tasks in first year undergraduate subjects
The Faculty expectation is that assessment tasks in the early stages of transition to university should
be formative in nature and structured to scaffold students’ development as learners. Assessment
regimes for UG subjects routinely undertaken by students transitioning into higher education should
be designed to help develop academic literacy needs of students, and there should be timely
feedback in the early stages of these subjects. Consistent with the intentions of Section 3 Part B
of the CSU Assessment Principles Policy, wherever possible the first assessment task in first
year UG subjects should be a ‘low stakes’ task. This may be achieved a) by having a non graded
formative task before the first summative task , b) by providing a very low weighting (e.g. less than
20%) for the first summative task, or c) by allowing resubmission for students performing
unsatisfactorily on the first task (see Section 6.3 below).
5.4
Pass requirements in subjects
The requirement for passing a subject should routinely be a final cumulative score equal or
greater than 50%. In some subjects it may be important that students pass all assessment
tasks (e.g. hybrid subjects and EPT subjects), but this should not be a routine requirement.
Where it is a requirement to pass all assessment tasks, this information must be communicated to
students in the Subject Outline including the process for managing the situation where a student
achieves a passing grade but fails an assessment task. The usual process here is to award an AA
grade.
5.5
Additional requirements and conditions within graded subjects
The inclusion of additional terms or conditions beyond actual assessment items for passing a graded
subject is strongly discouraged. Where expectations relating to academic literacy, participation in
online activities, attendance at classes and so on are seen as essential, these requirements should
be made part of assessment tasks and integrated into the criteria and standards for the tasks.
In graded subjects the following terms or conditions are particularly seen as inappropriate as they are
not transparent, not easily judged, and/or record keeping systems not easily devised /maintained
•
participate fully in class discussions
•
complete the set reading for each week
•
participate as an engaged team member in a particular activity which is part of a particular
assessment item
•
make meaningful postings to their subject forum on a regular basis.
Staff who wish to specify additional requirements and conditions for passing their subject, beyond the
normal requirement of a final cumulative score equal or greater than 50%, are required to consult with
Subject Team members and their Course Director and then seek approval for their regime from the
relevant Head of School or TELT (Teacher Education Leadership Team) prior to the finalisation for
publication of the Subject Outline.
5.6
Compulsory attendance in on-campus subjects
In on-campus subjects there is an expectation that all students will prepare for, attend, participate in,
and engage with structured learning activities in all scheduled classes and/or designated online
activities. However, consistent with the statements above discouraging the setting of additional
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 7 of 32
requirements to pass a subject beyond performance in summative assessment tasks, attendance at
class should not normally be a requirement to pass a subject. Where completion of learning activities
that occur during on-campus classes is considered essential in order to satisfactorily complete a
subject, performance on these tasks should be assessed as part of the summative assessment items
described within the subject outline.
5.7
Exemption from requirements based on previous assessment in the same subject
In rare instances it may be deemed appropriate to offer exemption from completion of an assessment
task based on completion of previous assessment in the same subject. Where a previous attempt at
an assessment task in the same subject is to be used as the basis of exemption this must be
made clear in the subject outline along with the following information:
•
Which assessment tasks this applies to;
•
Which particular prior sessions of offering this applies to;
•
How the previous mark will be used (for example in the situation where the weighting of an
assignment has been changed the mark will need to be converted to reflect the new
weighting);
•
Any restrictions relating to minimum levels of performance within specific assessment tasks or
the subject overall in the prior attempt at the subject;
•
The procedure for requesting exemption (e.g. applying in writing within the first three weeks of
the session); and
•
The mechanism through which and date by which the student will be notified of whether their
request has been granted.
Any exemption that may be offered for assessment tasks on the basis of assessment
undertaken during a previous attempt at a subject must be applied consistently across all
cohorts in the subject offering.
5.8
Equivalence in assessment across cohorts
Where a subject is offered concurrently to more than one cohort of students due to multicampus, multi-mode or partner offerings assessment items (including exams) will normally be
the same for all cohorts of students within a particular session offering.
In exceptional circumstance with the approval of the relevant Head of School or TELT different
assessment items may be used for different cohorts/students in a subject provided that all of
the conditions below are met:
•
Improving student learning for the diversity of cohorts/ learners is the rationale for the
difference (not staff interests/expertise)
•
Subject Convenor and Subject Team have consulted and agreed on the different assessment
items
•
Different assessment items must address the same or equivalent learning outcomes; be of
the same standard and the same weighting, as determined by agreement of the Subject
Convenor and the Subject Team
•
Students are given the option of completing the assessment tasks intended for other cohorts.
•
Subject Convenors and Subject Teams document how they have determined consistent
application of standards such that students undertaking different assessment items have
confidence that they are not advantaged or disadvantaged
•
Subject Convenors and Subject Teams document their discussions and use this information
as the basis to obtain approval from the relevant Head of School or TELT.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 8 of 32
The Pass/Fail statement in the Subject Outlines must be the same for all cohorts in that
subject.
5.9
Examinations
Although it is not always feasible to provide detailed assessment rubrics within subject outlines for
examinations it is nevertheless an expectation that, like other assessment tasks, examinations are
criterion-referenced and standards-based. Consequently it is an expectation of the faculty that
the assessment criteria to be used in designing an examination and in marking student
examination scripts are listed within the subject outline. Please see the CSU Assessment and
Moderation resources site at http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/assessment-and-moderation-atcsu/home for guidance about the design of CRSB exams.
End-of-session examinations will be a maximum of two hours duration unless an exemption has been
approved by the Executive Dean.
5.10 Subject outline requirements
The Subject Outlines Policy, Section 3, specifies the assessment information required to be included
within the subject outline. In addition to these university requirements Sections 5.4 (pass
requirements) and 5.7 (recognition of previous attempts) above and Sections 6.3 (resubmission), 7.1
(extensions) and 8.1 (additional assessment) below specify additional Faculty of Education
expectations regarding elements that need to be included within subject outlines.
6
Managing the assessment process during the session
6.1
Feedback to students
Feedback to students on individual assessment items (excluding exams) should include:
•
an indication of how each student has performed against the criteria and standards
provided in the subject outline (normally by providing an annotated version of the
assessment rubric provided within the subject outline);
•
a numeric score for a graded item or a satisfactory/unsatisfactory statement for a nongraded item and an indication of how the score has been calculated or the
satisfactory/unsatisfactory status determined in terms of the documented criteria and
standards; and
•
individual written feedback on performance in the task.
Written feedback should be legible, clear and respectful of the student and contribute to positive
learning outcomes. A student should be able to identify the marker of their assessment task.
Feedback needs to be timely and available to students before they submit a subsequent formal piece
of assessment. Particularly in large subjects with multiple markers, attention needs to be paid to the
time required to mark an assessment item at the time of designing the actual task and dates of
submission. All assessment tasks should be due on or before the end of the teaching period.
The interpretation of criteria and standards and the depth of written feedback needs to be consistent
across markers and across cohorts in multi cohort subjects. See Part B Section 13 for more
information about the ways in which this should be ensured through moderation processes.
6.2
Remarking of assessment tasks
Formal re-marks of assessment tasks and reviews of grade are dealt with in Assessment Policy –
Coursework Subjects Section 10 Part S and Part T. Please consult these sections of this policy in the
first instance.
6.3
Resubmission of assessment tasks
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 9 of 32
In the absence of discipline or school policies on resubmission of assessment tasks that do
not reach a passing grade, subject convenors/coordinators have discretion in determining
whether resubmission will be allowed in a subject. Importantly if resubmission is to be allowed
this needs to be made clear in the subject outline and the statement about resubmission
should include the information listed below.
Allowing resubmission following unsatisfactory performance in the first assessment task in first year
undergraduate subjects is encouraged especially in situations where the reason for the students’
unsatisfactory performance relates to referencing or other aspects of academic literacy. Allowing
resubmission can be an effective strategy to ensure that students engage with feedback and can also
ensure that the first attempt at the first assessment task is a ‘low stakes’ experience.
If a student’s work is satisfactory following resubmission their mark should be recorded as a
borderline pass only (normally 50%) in order to ensure that a student who receives a
satisfactory mark for the assessment task is not disadvantaged by the fact that students
performing unsatisfactorily are given the opportunity to resubmit.
The following information needs to be included within the subject outline when resubmission
is to be allowed:
•
the fact that there will be a limit of one re-submission for any one assessment task;
•
the effect of the re-submission on the recorded mark for the assessment task (e.g. a
maximum of 50% of the marks for the assessment task ); and
•
Whether the Subject Coordinator/Convenor will indicate that resubmission is allowed or
expected, or the onus will be on the student to request resubmission.
6.4
Maintaining subject assessment records
As required by Section 3 Part D of the Assessment Principles Policy, Subject
Convenors/Coordinators/Cohort Facilitators are responsible for entering marks into the online grade
system during the teaching session, normally at about the same time that students’ marked
assessment tasks are returned.
7
Misadventure, special consideration and extensions
7.1
Extensions on assessment items
In the absence of policies on extensions at the School or discipline level, subject
convenors/coordinators have discretion in determining the criteria for extensions and the penalty for
late submission of an assessment task when an extension has not been granted. Appendix C
provides suggested text for subject outlines on extensions and penalties for late submission but this
text is a suggestion only.
Notwithstanding the convenor’s/coordinator’s discretion in relation to this, the following are the
minimum expectations in relation to extensions and late submission penalties:
7.2
•
The criteria for granting an extension and the penalty for late submission should be
documented in the subject outline;
•
Student requests for extensions should be received in writing before the due date of the
assessment task and should include supporting documentation where possible; and
•
An aggregated record of all approvals (including any conditions) granted within the subject be
kept by the Subject Coordinator/ Convenor.
Extensions for tests and examinations conducted during session
Extensions or delayed assessment for mid-session tests or examinations will normally only be
considered where students have applied to the Subject Coordinator/Convenor in writing on the basis
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 10 of 32
of misadventure or extenuating circumstances, as defined in the Special Consideration Policy, and
have provided appropriate supporting documentation, as defined in Appendix C.
7.3
Extensions for compulsory residential school, fieldwork or practicum requirements
Extensions for the completion of compulsory residential school, fieldwork or practicum requirements
will normally only be permitted where students have applied to the Subject Coordinator/Convenor in
writing on the basis of misadventure or extenuating circumstances, as defined in the Special
Consideration Policy, and have provided appropriate supporting documentation (see Appendix C).
7.4
Extension requests versus special consideration applications
Where a student encounters a more major misadventure that prevents them from submitting an
assessment task within a reasonable period following the due date or requires an extension beyond
the end of the session they should submit an Application for Special Consideration and request a
Grade Pending (GP). The types of circumstances for which special consideration is granted are
specified in the Special Consideration Policy and are also discussed in Section 8 of these guidelines.
Applications for GP must be initiated by the student; however, subject coordinators can recommend
this course of action to a student. In exceptional circumstances a School may allocate a GP.
7.5
Special Consideration, Misadventure and Extenuating Circumstances
The types of circumstances for which special consideration should be granted are specified in the
Special Consideration Policy.
Only applications for special consideration due to misadventure or extenuating circumstances that are
accompanied by supporting documentary evidence will be considered. Special Consideration Policy
Section 5 defines the requirements for supporting documents as evidence of misadventure or
extenuating circumstances.
7.6
Misadventure at a supplementary exam
Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects Section 13 Part TT explains the policy and procedures
associated with misadventures and extenuating circumstances relating to supplementary
examinations (SX). As with a GP, applications for SX must be initiated by the student, although
subject coordinators can recommend this course of action to a student. In exceptional circumstances
a School may allocate a SX. As stated in Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects, Section 13 Part
TT, unless the examination papers that were used in the original official examination in a subject were
made available to all students prior to completion of the original official examination, the original
official examination paper may not be used for an additional examination.
7.7
Timeframe for applications for Special Consideration
The timeframes for applications for special consideration are as follows:
8
•
By the Friday before the examination period for GP and SX applications that relate to illness
or misadventure experienced during session as explained in the Special Consideration Policy
Section 4.
•
Within three working days of the examination for SX applications that relate to illness or
misadventure experienced during the examination period and/or the preceding week as
explained in the Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects, Section 14 Part RR.
Grades
The key to CSU grades is available in the Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects, Section 3 Part
D, as well as additional information in relation to the awarding of the following grades:
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 11 of 32
8.1
•
AW and FW grades (Approved Withdrawal and Fail Withdrawal)
•
AA and AE grades (Additional Assessment and Additional Exam)
•
GP and SX grades (Grade Pending and Supplementary Exam)
Awarding of AA and AE grades
The Faculty of Education requires that AA or AE grades be awarded for all eligible students
enrolled in specified coursework subjects offered by the Faculty, except subjects graded on a
Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory basis and subjects offered by SPACE-HKU. Arrangements between
CSU Student Administration and HKU-SPACE Administration require that students are awarded GP
grades rather than AA or AE grades Eligible students are as defined in the Assessment Policy –
Coursework Subjects, Section 5, with the additional criterion that the student must have completed
and submitted all compulsory assessment items for the subject during the session of offering. The
Faculty of Education defines “marginally below the mark required for a pass” as 5% of the
total possible mark attainable in the subject i.e. 45%-49% of the attainable marks. An AA or AE
task must be different to the original task but of the same standard.
8.2
Communication of availability of Additional Assessment
The availability of additional assessment must be clearly communicated to students via the
Subject Outline. The following is the suggested wording:
This subject is open to additional assessment, as specified in Assessment Regulation 5.
Students who marginally fail the subject will be contacted by examinations office and given
the opportunity to undertake additional assessment following payment of a fee.
8.3
Changes of grade
All grade conversions should be ratified by the appropriate School and Faculty Assessment
Committees. Monitoring of unconverted grades is the responsibility of the Heads of School in
conjunction with the School and Faculty Assessment Committees. Schools should use Banner Report
ZSRGPSX to monitor unconverted grades on a biannual basis.
Changes of grade occur to convert non-substantive grades (such as GP, TA, AA, AE, SX, IP) to
substantive grades (PS, CR, DI, HD, FL, SY, US). Subject Coordinators/Convenors are responsible
for initiating and completing the Change of Grade form including the reason for the change. When the
basis for the Change of Grade is an error in the calculation of marks, the Subject
Coordinator/Convenor must also complete a form to verify the accuracy of all other grades in the
subject.
Where a substantive grade is to be changed, the Review of Grade process should be followed (i.e.
the student must apply for a ROG using the appropriate form). In some cases, a school initiated
review of grade may be appropriate where an error is discovered by administrative or academic staff.
Subject Coordinators/ Convenors should consult the School Assessment Committee secretary or
HOS about this option. All grade changes must be ratified by the appropriate School and Faculty
Assessment Committees.
8.4
Notification of grades
Official notification of grades is the responsibility of the Division of Student Administration. Faculty
staff members are not permitted to inform students of their final grades prior to their official release
and subsequent to recommendations from Schools and ratification by the Faculty.
8.5
Timeline for finalising grades at end-of-sessions
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 12 of 32
The deadline for subject convenors/coordinators finalising grades for a subject is specified within each
School in order to allow sufficient time for the members of School Assessment Committees to
scrutinise Assessment and Moderation Records before the Assessment Committee meeting.
The finalisation of grades is the main priority during the end-of-session assessment periods. Subject
Convenors, Subject Teams and Heads of School should bear in mind the Faculty requirement to have
finalised grades for submission in advance of their School Assessment Committee meetings and to
be available for comment during these meetings, when considering any leave or other applications
which may remove staff from campus during the assessment period. Where subject convenor or
coordinator is a sessional staff member, they should provide phone details where they can be
contacted if necessary during the grade finalisation period.
8.6
Applying TA grades to an entire cohort
TA grades will not normally be applied to entire student cohorts, except when the final assessment
has been delayed such as may occur for students undertaking practicum requirements or in
exceptional circumstances. Where it is necessary to apply a TA grade to an entire cohort this should
first be discussed with the Head of School or Assessment Committee Secretary.
8.7
Applying TA grades to individual students
TA grades are normally awarded where further action to resolve the grade is required on the part of
the University and that action is not able to be taken in time to finalise the grade prior to the meeting
of the School Assessment Committee. TA grades will not normally be allocated to individual students
except in the case of lecturer illness/misadventure, acceptance by the lecturer of a late assessment
task immediately prior to the submission of grades or within practicum subjects when routine
extensions of time are given for individual students to complete practicum requirements. In these
cases, the following procedures will be followed:
8.8
•
The Subject Coordinator will record the TA grade in the online grade system along with a
comment as to the timeframe for resolving the grade.
•
Normally, TA grades will be converted to a substantive grade by the next School Assessment
Committee meeting.
•
In the event that a student has a TA grade converted to a substantive grade they will still have
the right to ask for a review of this grade in line with the current policy.
Late grade changes
Heads of Schools have the delegated authority to approve late grades, changes to grades and
conversions to substantive grades which require approval before the next meeting of the Faculty
Assessment Committee, noting that all such approvals are to be reported to, and ratified by, the next
meeting of the Faculty Assessment Committee.
8.9
Reviews of grade
The Assessment Policy – Coursework Subjects, Section 10 provides direction on the Review of Grade
criteria and requirements. All reviews of grade should be considered by the School Assessment
Committee, and recommendation made to the Executive Dean for ratification when there is no
pending Faculty Assessment Committee meeting. The final outcome is notified to the Faculty
Assessment Committee.
The procedure for requesting a review of grade is quite different to the procedure for requesting
remarking of an assessment task. See above for a discussion about procedures associated with
requests for the remark of an assessment task. However, note that where a student wishes to request
a remark at the end of session after grades have been finalised, a review of grade is the appropriate
process to follow.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 13 of 32
8.10 Grades in Workplace Learning Subjects in Teacher Education Courses
Decisions regarding failing grades for the workplace learning experience component of EPT subjects
are made via a process that includes Professional Experience Unit (PEU) staff, the EPT subject
coordinator, the Heads of Schools, Course Directors and the Executive Dean. The process is outlined
in a flow diagram that can be found in Appendix D. A more detailed description of the process along
with templates of relevant letters and other documents can be found in the document ‘Procedures for
Addressing Unsatisfactory Performance on Professional Experience Placement’ available on the
Faculty Learning and Teaching website.
The process is summarised below:
1. The Professional Experience Results Committee (PERC), made up of the subject coordinator,
PEU Director, PEU liaison officer & PEU experience coordinator, meets within twenty days of
the conclusion of the placement to consider the evidence and make a recommendation to the
HoS about the outcome for the student.
2. The outcome will be one of the following:
a. That the student repeats placement at new site as soon as possible and a TA grade
is recorded. Other subject requirements are not repeated.
b. That the student be given a US grade & reenrol in subject, repeating all subject
requirements, at the next offering.
c.
That the student be given a US grade and excluded from course.
3. Where the recommendation is for exclusion, the HoS convenes a meeting of the Professional
Experience Assessment Committee (PEAC), made up of the relevant HoS and Course
Director, within 10 working days to determine whether to exclude student from course or not;
and, if applicable, the period of exclusion. The outcome will be one of the following:
a. Student is not excluded - student re-enrols in the subject and repeats all subject
requirements, at the next offering. HOS advises student via letter of outcome of
PEAC and course progression.
b. Student is excluded from the course for a prescribed period of time. PEAC Chair will
advise DSA of outcome and notifies the Executive Dean, SAC Secretary for reporting
purposes and DPEU of exclusion decision.
Appeals against any decisions must go through the Review of Grade process and will be considered
by the School Assessment Committee in PERC cases where exclusion is not an outcome, and by the
Executive Dean in PEAC cases where exclusion is an outcome.
9
Student Academic Misconduct
The Student Academic Misconduct Policy is the guide to definition and determination of Student
Academic Misconduct at CSU.
10
Assessment Committees
The work of School Assessment Committees is fundamental to the progression of students. It is the
place where final grades are endorsed for recommendation to the Faculty Assessment Committee,
where decisions on extenuating circumstances are made and where grade reviews are considered.
The membership and terms of reference of School Assessment Committees are available in ‘School
Assessment Committees - Membership and Terms of Reference’ within the CSU Policy Library.
The Faculty of Education requires that
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 14 of 32
•
Schools shall have an Assessment Committee whose composition may vary to suit the needs
of the particular School. However, the Committee must include the relevant Head of
School and Course Director/Coordinator representation. School Assessment Committees
will be comprised of not fewer than six members. In the case of smaller schools, with fewer
than six staff members, all staff are expected to be members of the Committee
•
Heads of Schools will receive necessary documentation and advice from staff proceeding on
leave, for bona fide illness, compassionate or extenuating circumstances. All other
academic staff must endeavour to be available for consultation for the period of the
Committee meeting and one hour thereafter to ensure that the Committee can finalise
its deliberations prior to the compilation of minutes and associated papers for the
Faculty Assessment Committee.
•
School Assessment Committee meetings will be conducted at least one clear working
day prior to the Faculty Assessment Committee to allow for follow-up, finalisation,
reporting and timely dissemination of outcomes to other Schools and FAC members
prior to the Faculty Assessment Committee. Dissemination of School Committee minutes
to Faculty Assessment Committee members should occur no later than noon the day prior to
the Faculty Assessment Committee meeting to allow for adequate review and preparation
time
•
The minutes and other papers of School and Faculty Assessment Committees are
confidential. Nevertheless, Presiding Officers are reminded of the need to apply protocols
around privacy (e.g. the use of names and disclosure of medical conditions should be
avoided) and careful use of appropriate language is required e.g. in the “comments” sections
of various appendices such as change-of-grade summaries.
Additional information about the work needed to be carried out by members of the School
Assessment Committee, the nature of the documentation considered by the committee, and the ways
in which the deliberations are to be recorded is contained within Section 17 of the Moderation
Guidelines in Part B of this document.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 15 of 32
Part B. Moderation Guidelines
11
Background to the moderation guidelines
This part of the Assessment and Moderation guidelines sets out the moderation procedures to be
followed in the Faculty of Education following the implementation of the CSU Moderation Policy and
the revised CSU Assessment Principles Policy from 201430. This part should be read in conjunction
with these two policy documents.
The Moderation policy sets out requirements for the moderation of subject materials, assessment
designs and assessment processes, with requirements specified at the pre-subject, during-subject
and post-subject stages of the teaching cycle. The policy sets out the broad expectations at these
stages but leaves the specific details open to interpretation by faculties. This document provides the
additional detail required to make clear what is expected under this policy within the Faculty of
Education.
Note that moderation is required in all subjects including workplace learning subjects. However,
workplace learning subjects which are graded as Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory are exempt from the
during subject stage of moderation.
12 Moderation roles and responsibilities
The Assessment Principles and Moderation policies specify the responsibilities of the various
stakeholders in the assessment and moderation processes in general terms. These guidelines clarify
expectations within the Faculty of Education in more detail. Specifically, the responsibilities of the
following roles are defined at various places within this part of the document:
•
Head of School
•
Teacher Education Leadership Team (TELT)
•
Subject Convenor for multi cohort subjects
•
Cohort Facilitator for multi cohort subjects
•
Subject Coordinator for single cohort subjects
•
Quality Assurance Consultant
•
School Assessment Committee chair
•
School Assessment Committee member
•
School Assessment Committee Secretary
•
Faculty Assessment Committee Chair
•
Faculty Assessment Committee Member
•
Faculty Assessment Committee Secretary
•
Course Director
A summary of the responsibilities of each of these roles in the assessment and moderation processes
is provided in Appendix A.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 16 of 32
13 Overview
The following diagram provides an overview of the stages within the moderation process.
Pre-subject
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address issues from previous session
Review subject assessments & learning
materials for alignment.
Set up marking rubrics – ensure alignment
Complete MSI and QA processes.
Complete A & M Record (Parts 1&2).
During-subject
• Moderation for each assessment
• Record on A & M Record (Part 3)
• Record marks in Gradebook & release to
students
Assessment Committee check A & M Record
(Part 1)
Follow up with Course Director & Subject
Convenor/Coordinator if necessary
Post-subject
• Follow up recommendations
from A & M Record and
Assessment Committee for
next delivery.
End of session
• Final moderation of grades to create defensible grade
allocations
• Discussion of improvements for next delivery
• Complete A & M Record (Part 4)
• Assessment Committee checks A & M Records for overall
picture of A & M; triggers for discussion noted.
• Committee meets to discuss subjects and sign off grades;
makes recommendations for future delivery; informs
Course Directors.
• Committee completes report to Faculty Assessment
Committee.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 17 of 32
An Assessment and Moderation Record (A&M Record) is created prior to the beginning of the session
for each subject and this form is used to record the actions undertaken at each step of the moderation
process for this subject for this session(see sample in Appendix E). A single form is created for all
offerings and all cohorts undertaking a subject in a single session. The following sections provide
more specific detail about the steps undertaken, the timing of each step and the information that
needs to be recorded on the form.
14 Pre-subject moderation processes
Following the creation of the subject outline there are two parts to the pre-subject moderation. The
first is the assessment design moderation (recorded in Part 1 of the A&M Record) and the second is
the subject outline moderation (recorded in Part 2 of the A&M Record). Subjects which have been
designed using the Smart Learning process or have been previously moderated and have not
subsequently had their assessment changed do not have the undergo assessment design moderation
(Part 1), but should still undergo subject outline moderation.
Prior to the commencement of the moderation process the Head(s) of School (HOS) or delegate(s)
will allocate a subject convenor (SCV), subject coordinator (SCO) or nominal subject coordinator
(NSC) to prepare the subject outline, a quality assurance consultant or consultants (QAC) to complete
the quality assurance parts of the A&M Record (Parts 1 and 2) and the Mandatory Subject Outline
(MSI) QA, and in cross campus subjects Cohort Facilitators (CF) who will also have input to and
provide feedback on the assessment design . The QAC who completes Part 1 would normally be an
academic staff member with experience in assessment design and some knowledge and expertise
relevant to the subject. For cross campus subjects the QAC would normally be a SCO or CF on
another campus. Some Schools may choose to allocate separate people to complete the QAC role for
Parts 1 and 2 of the A&M Record.
For cross campus subjects only one copy of the form needs to be completed for all subjects.
However, once the first version of the outline is cloned for other campuses the cloned version of the
outline will need to be Quality Assured within the MSI system. The subject convenor (SCV) should act
as the MSI QA officer for the versions of the outline created for the other campuses so that they can
confirm that no substantive changes to assessment have been introduced during cloning.
The Secretary of the School Assessment Committee (SAC) will create the A&M Record for each
subject and make them accessible to the SCV, SCO or NSC and the QAC. Note that for cross
campus or multi cohort subjects there will be a single A&M Record to record all assessment and
moderation information for all cohorts in a single teaching session. This form will be created by the
SAC Secretary in the school responsible for Convenorship of the subject.
When completing parts 1 and 2 of the A&M Record the SCV/SCO/NSC should enter NA in the Met
column for any fields that are not applicable (for example, in the prescribed textbook details field if
there is no prescribed textbook).
If a criterion within Part 1 or Part 2 of the A&M Record is recorded as Not Met by the QAC the QAC
should not approve the MSI for publication but should send it back to the SCV/SCO/NSC to make
further changes. The QAC will make a judgement about whether to require the SCV/SCO/NSC to
submit the MSI for an additional round of QA or whether to allow the MSI to be published once the
issues have been addressed. For major issues it is better to ensure that the MSI is sent back for an
additional round of QA which will ensure that the QAC has the opportunity to update the A&M Record
so that it represents the state of the MSI once published. For minor issues this may not be necessary
and allowing the SCV/SCO/NSC to address the issues and publish the outline, recording the fact that
the unmet criteria has been addressed in the A&M Record, is acceptable.
During the QA process the use of the comment field in the form is important for capturing the key
issues; however, direct communication between the SCV/SCO/NSC and the QAC is encouraged. For
cross campus subjects, the SCV should meet with the cross-campus teaching team to discuss in
detail the assessment items, marking criteria and rubric for each assessment task prior to the start of
the session.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 18 of 32
The final element on the pre-subject processes is a discussion by the School Assessment Committee
(SAC) of whether all of the assessment related aspects of the pre-subject moderation processes have
been carried out appropriately, with a particular focus on Part 1 of the A&M Record, the Assessment
Design Moderation Record. This discussion may occur at a special meeting of the committee or via
email at the discretion of the HOS. The follow up with regard to emergent issues from this meeting is
the responsibility of the HOS or delegate, however CDs will also be notified by the SAC secretary of
any major issues relating to subjects within their course.
The following table provides a summary of the steps involved and the responsibilities of the various
roles prior to commencement of the session.
Timing
Person responsible
Task
Before session start minus 6
weeks
HOS or delegate
Allocate SCV/SCO/NSC and QAC
Before session start minus 4
weeks
SAC Secretary
Create A&M Record for each subject
and place on shared drive
Before session start minus 4
weeks
SCV/SCO/NSC
Complete subject outline including
rubrics through MSI addressing issues
identified in previous session’s A&M
Record and complete subject
coordinator column in Parts 1 and 2 of
form.
Before session start minus 3
weeks
QAC
Complete MSI QA and A&M Record
parts 1 and 2
Before session start minus 2
weeks
SCV/SCO/NSC
Finalise subject outline based on MSI
QA and A&M Record feedback
Before session start
SAC
Check that all subject outlines have
been submitted and part 1 of all A&M
Records has been completed
Before session start
HOS or delegate
Follow up with subject convenors/
coordinators as necessary
15 During subject moderation processes
The during subject process differs depending on whether the subject has more than one concurrent
offering and depending on whether the SCV/SCO undertakes all of the marking or additional markers
are employed.
For single offering subjects where the SCO undertakes all of the marking the QAC should check the
marking of a subset of the marked assessment tasks (eg. at least one from each grade level) as well
as checking the marking of a sample of assessment tasks graded FL and HD. For multiple
campus/cohort subjects or subjects in which markers are employed, a series of moderation steps
need to be undertaken and recorded in part 3 of the A&M Record, for each assessment task as
documented below. Where the SCV/SCO employs markers and does not undertake marking
themselves they are responsible for checking the marking (Step 3 below) and the QAC’s main during
subject involvement in this scenario is at the conclusion of marking of the final assessment task (Step
7).
Note that workplace learning subjects graded Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory are exempt from during
subject moderation.
Step 1: SCV/SCO ensures markers have a copy of subject outline and assessment
rubrics or information given to students. A guideline for marking assessment items is
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 19 of 32
developed to support marker/s providing background to the task, links to reference material
and links to the process of the subject. Marker/s is/are included on the subject interact site to
facilitate knowledge of any comments and information given to students during the course of
the teaching, and ideally have access to EASTS for online marking. This step is not required
for single cohort subjects where the SCO does all of the marking.
Step 2: within the first week after assessment task submission, the SCV/SCO shares 45 representative scripts (ideally one for each grade level) with the teaching team
across the campuses and/or casual markers (representative scripts may be selected
assessment tasks marked by the SCV/SCO or may be marked samples from a previous
session) – with a conversation around decisions and feedback. This can be done using Bridgit
and video conference, or scanned for online access. Decisions at this conversation point will
be about feedback, standards and expectations. All casual markers should be included in this
conversation, or provided with detailed notes. This step is not required for single cohort
subjects where the SCO does all of the marking.
Step 3: Markers forward failing and HD assessment tasks to SCV/SCO so that a sample can
be cross checked. In single cohort subjects where the SCO does all of the marking, the QAC
will check the marking of a sample of assessment tasks including at least one of each grade
level and a sample of FL and HD graded assessment tasks at this stage.
Step 4: Overall feedback for students is prepared and posted to Interact site with input from
members of the marking team.
Step 5: a wrap up conversation (which could occur via email) for each assessment will
highlight any issues with the assessment that need to be noted for subject review, and
allow for the development of an overall student feedback comment sheet that can be posted
on the interact sites for student information. This step is not required for single cohort
subjects where the SCO does all of the marking, however any issues that emerge should be
noted and communicated to the QAC.
Step 6: SCV/SCO checks that marks have been recorded in Gradebook on all
campuses and released to students in a timely fashion. (SCV/SCO has access to Interact
sites even if sites have not been merged). Grade distribution for each assessment is checked.
This step is not required for single cohort subjects where the SCO does all of the marking.
In addition to these 6 steps to be undertaken for each assessment task, a final step (Step 7 on the
A&M Record) involves the teaching team and where feasible the markers along with the QAC
discussing the assessment and moderation processes undertaken within the subject. This discussion
could be held in a face to face, online or telephone meeting or could occur via email. The grade
distribution and any issues emerging from moderation including cross campus issues should be
discussed.
The fields in Part 3 of the A&M Record allow the date of each step to be recorded and for comments
describing the steps undertaken to be entered. For single cohort subjects where the SCO does all of
the marking, NA should be entered for steps 1, 2, 5 and 6 for each assessment task.
The QAC will confirm that the form has been completed and that the steps listed have actually been
undertaken before signing off. For cross campus subjects where the QAC would normally be one of
the SCOs or CFs on another campus, they should have been intricately involved and therefore able to
verify the steps undertaken. For single cohort subjects with casual markers the QAC should discuss
the processes undertaken with the SCO and sight sample marked scripts before signing off. For
single cohort subjects where the SCO does all of the marking the QAC will verify that moderation of
marked assessment tasks at Step 3 has been undertaken and that any issues identified have been
addressed.
The following table summarises the roles, responsibilities and expected timelines for the during
subject phase.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 20 of 32
Timing
Person
responsible
Task
Before due date of each
assessment task
SCV and SCO
Discuss criteria with markers.
Immediately after due date
of each assessment task
SCV/SCO
Prepare sample marked assessment tasks
As assessment tasks are
marked
SCV/SCO/QAC
Check marking of a subset of assessment tasks
from each marker
After return of assessment
tasks
SCV/SCO/QAC
Post overall feedback to Interact, discuss
issues with marking team, check that grade
book has been completed, Complete A&M
Record part 3
At the conclusion of the
subject
SCV/SCO/QAC
Teaching/marking team and QAC discuss
emergent issues and grade allocations
16 Post subject moderation processes
Post subject processes focus on reporting about the moderation processes undertaken in the subject
and the final grade outcomes for the benefit of assessment committees. The grade distribution will be
extracted from Gradebook and entered by the SCV/SCO into Part 4 of the A&M Record along with
any comments on the grade distribution. For cross campus or multi cohort subjects the grade
distribution for each cohort will be entered in the form.
Where the overall failure rate or the failure rate for a single cohort is greater than 25% a causation of
fail summary consisting of the number of students who failed who did not submit each assessment
task should be provided for each relevant cohort.
Where the entire subject or an entire cohort have been allocated a TA grade the SCV/SCO should not
sign off at the end of Part 4 of the A&M Record. Rather, they should wait until the remaining grades
have been resolved and sign off on the form at the time that they submit the Change of Grade to the
HOS.
The following table provides a summary of the steps involved and the responsibilities of the various
roles prior to commencement of the session.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 21 of 32
Timing
Person
responsible
Task
Prior to the end of session
School Assessment
Committee meeting
SCV/SCO
Allocate grades in gradebook and complete
A&M Record part 4 including grade
distribution
Prior to the end of session
School Assessment
Committee meeting
SAC Secretary
Create spreadsheet from moderation forms
and identify subjects for scrutiny based on
criteria
Prior to the end of session
School Assessment
Committee meeting
SAC Members
Scrutinise a subset of subjects to identify
subjects needing to be discussed at the
meeting
At SAC meeting (prior to
grade approval in Gradebook )
SAC Members
Scrutinise assessment design and moderation
process in identified subjects.
Recommend grades
Record issues in A&M Record
Complete report to FAC
Notify relevant CDs of any emergent issues
through minutes
Following SAC meeting
HOS or delegate
Sign off on recommended grades in
Gradebook
At Faculty Assessment
Committee meeting
FAC Members
Scrutinise assessment design and moderation
process for identified subjects.
Approve grades
Record issues in A&M Records
17 Assessment committee processes
Overview
The role of the School and Faculty Assessment Committees under the new policies is to scrutinise
subjects in terms of their assessment design, assessment and moderation processes and the
outcomes of those processes. The focus is on ensuring that subjects are able to demonstrate a
criterion referenced and standards based assessment design, validated through peer review, and
implemented in a fair and consistent way for all cohorts.
Assessment and Moderation Record
As discussed above the Assessment and Moderation Record (A&M Record) is a pdf template for
documenting the assessment and moderation process. As mentioned above for cross campus or multi
cohort subjects there will be a single A&M Record to record all assessment and moderation
information for all cohorts in a single teaching session.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 22 of 32
This A&M Record is used to report:
• the review of the subject assessment regime including the alignment of assessment and
learning outcomes and the appropriateness of criteria and performance standards;
• the quality assurance of subject outlines prior to publication in MSI;
• the assessment moderation processes implemented to assure quality and validity of marking;
• the final grade distribution for the subject, and recommendations;
• Assessment Committee comments and recommendations and sign off including feedback for
future offerings.
For cross campus subjects the School Assessment Committee in the school in which the subject is
convened will scrutinise the subject including the offerings on other campuses.
In addition to the A&M Record, Assessment Committee Secretaries will also make use of a
spreadsheet that includes summarised information about each subject extracted from the A&M
Records. This spreadsheet will be used during the Assessment committee end of session meeting to
record the sign off by the committee along with any issues identified or follow up required.
School Assessment Committee – Beginning of Session Meeting
The School Assessment Committee will meet (physically face to face or via email) prior to the
commencement of the session to check that the pre-subject assessment moderation (corresponding
with the A&M Record Part 1) has occurred in all subjects and has been appropriately recorded on the
A&M Record. The HOS or delegate will follow up with individuals following this meeting to ensure
completion of this process. Where issues are identified during this process (eg. major problems with
assessment regimes identified by the QA Consultant) the HOS will follow up with the Subject
Coordinator or Convenor. It is expected that changes to the published subject outline will be very rare
but where they occur the existing policies and procedures for changing published outlines with HOS
approval will be followed.
School Assessment Committee – End of Session Meeting
The School Assessment Committee engages with the Subject Assessment and Moderation Reports
prior to grades being signed off by the HOS or Committee Chair, and contributes to that outcome.
i)
Prior to the meeting, immediately after the deadline for finalisation of grades by Subject
Coordinators/Convenors in Gradebook, the School Assessment Committee Secretary
(SACS) allocates each member of the committee a list of subjects for initial scrutiny and
ensures access to the A&M Record and Gradebook for the allocated subjects. Schools
have the flexibility to decide whether a single member will review each subject or whether
two or perhaps three members will be allocated to review each subject.
ii)
Drawing on the information in the A&M Record, the Subject Outline and Gradebook the
assessment committee member determines whether the subject needs to be further
scrutinised at the committee meeting (the committee member brings a list of subjects
requiring discussion to the meeting). Assessment committee members identify subjects
meeting any of the following criteria as well as identifying any other issues needing
discussion:
a. One or more aspects of the quality assurance criteria on the assessment design
report (A&M Record Part 1) were marked as not met by the quality assurer;
b. The grade distribution is particularly skewed (in either direction) or sufficiently
unusual such that the quality of assessment tasks, marking criteria, and/or standards
needs to be questioned (as a temporary measure schools are encouraged to raise
subjects for scrutiny which do not meet the old grade distribution requirements in
order to monitor the impact of the new policies on grade distributions during the first
year of operation of the new policies);
c. Scaling or overriding of generated grades has been carried out in a subject.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 23 of 32
If the subject does not meet any of these criteria and no other issues have been identified
the Assessment committee member types “not flagged for discussion” into Part 5 of the
form (assessment committee recommendations) and signs off on this part of the form
(which does not preclude the SAC secretary replacing this with alternative text and a later
signoff if the subject is nevertheless discussed by the committee and recommendations do
emerge).
iii)
Prior to the meeting the SACS generates a spreadsheet containing summary information
about each subject. Subjects missing key information in their A&M Record are flagged for
scrutiny at the meeting. Specifically, subjects will be flagged if they fall into one of the
following categories:
a. The pre-subject A&M Report parts 1 or 2 have not been completed by the subject
coordinator and a quality assurer;
b. A during subject moderation report (A&M Record Part 3) with entries for each
assessment task has not been completed;
c. A grade distribution report has not been provided (A&M Record Part 4);
iv)
The Assessment Committee meets and discusses subjects identified by the SACS or by
assessment committee members for additional scrutiny. During the meeting the committee
draws on the A&M Records, Gradebook and Subject Outlines. The committee seeks input
from subject coordinators if needed during the meeting.
v)
If problems with assessment regimes or the recommended grades are identified changes
to the grades recommended are made for approval of FAC. Committees draw on a range
of mechanisms to determine the new grades for individuals students where anomalies are
identified including scaling and internal or external benchmarking. Where benchmarking is
used it is expected that students will be awarded a TA grade in the interim to allow time for
completion of this process.
vi)
In subjects where all students in the subject or an entire cohort have been allocated a TA
grade, the HOS should ensure that when the change of grade form is received for the
remaining cohorts a member of the assessment committee scrutinises the processes in
the subject with a particular focus on the cohorts initially allocated a TA. The change of
grade for an entire cohort should not be approved until this scrutiny has occurred and any
issues emerging have been addressed.
vii)
Following approval by the committee, the HOS or delegated committee chair completes
the Gradebook sign off process.
viii)
In cross campus subjects the Secretary of the SAC in the convening school notifies the
HOS responsible for other offerings of the subject when the grades have been approved
so that Gradebook signoff can be completed.
ix)
After Banner and Gradebook synchronise, the SAC Secretary downloads spreadsheets for
each subject from Gradebook and stores with the A&M Report on shared drive.
x)
School Assessment Committee Secretary completes minutes and spreadsheet
summarising discussions and issues raised about subject, and recommends the grades to
the Faculty Assessment Committee as per current practice. Feedback from the committee
to be picked up in future offerings of the subject will be copied into the A&M Records. SAC
Secretary also notifies Course Directors of any major issues relating to subjects within
their course.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 24 of 32
Faculty Assessment Committee – End of Session Meeting
Faculty Assessment Committee members are provided with the minutes of School Assessment
Committees as is current practice. During the meeting members will identify subjects for additional
scrutiny or discussion based on the information in these minutes. The committee has access to the
A&M Records, Gradebook and Subject Outlines during the meeting. Any additional recommendations
emerging from this meeting should be entered in the A&M Record by the SAC Secretary at the
conclusion of the meeting.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 25 of 32
Appendix A. Roles and responsibilities
Head of School – allocates people to Nominal Subject Coordinator, Subject Coordinator, Subject
Convenor or Quality Assurance Consultant role, establishes timelines and expectations such that all
grades are finalised in advance of the School Assessment Committees, follows up with academic staff
where pre, during and post subject processes have not been undertaken correctly, chairs School
Assessment Committee, signs off on grades approved by the school committee. Heads of School also
have the authority to approve variation in assessment items or other exceptions to these guidelines
for individual subjects, and discipline specific policies, as well as signing off on cohort-based TA
grades. When a Head of School is the Subject Convenor, the Dean will act in the role of Head of
School for the purposes of the assessment regulations and delegations.
Teacher Education Leadership Team (TELT) – oversees the procedures associated with the
application of these guidelines and approves exceptions to these guidelines for teacher education
subjects.
Subject Convenor - takes full responsibility for all aspects of the design, leadership and management
of multiple cohort teacher education subjects, including: preparing the subject outline for discussion
with Cohort Facilitators for their own campus, course or mode and ensuring the teaching team meets
regularly over the duration of the subject, coordinating the academic staff assigned to teach the
subject; monitoring the quality and effectiveness of teaching within the subjects; ensuring that
assessment and moderation procedures used in the subjects are consistent and uniform ; overseeing
the grade allocation processes, recommending revisions for future sessions completing parts 1, 2, 3
and 4 of the A&M Record; and attending the end of session School Assessment Committee meeting if
required (see the document ‘Role description for subject convenors, cohort facilitators and other
teaching staff in multi-cohort subjects’ for a full description of the Subject Convenor role).
Subject Coordinator (single cohort subjects) – normally takes responsibility for overseeing the
design/refinement and management of subjects, including coordinating the academic staff assigned to
teach the subjects; monitoring the quality and effectiveness of teaching within the subjects; ensuring
that assessment and moderation procedures used in the subjects are consistent and uniform;
allocating recommended grades, recommending revisions for future sessions; completing parts 1, 2, 3
and 4 of the A&M Record; and attending the end of session School Assessment Committee meeting if
required.
Nominal Subject Coordinator – creates subject outline where the subject coordinator is not
available or has not yet been appointed and in these cases also completes Parts 1 and 2 of A&M
Report.
Subject Coordinator or Cohort Facilitator (multi cohort subjects) – participates in subject
development discussions prior to subject outline completion, participates in discussions about the
application of marking criteria, and provides information to the subject convenor for reporting. In some
cases will also fill the role of Quality Assurance consultant.
Quality Assurance consultant – needed for every subject; needs to have some knowledge of/
expertise in the subject and discipline area. Consults with subject coordinator at pre-subject stage and
completes the QA checklists in Parts 1 and 2 of the A&M Report. The QA consultant consults with the
convenor or coordinator at the end of session and signs off A&M Report prior to it being sent to the
Assessment Committee. Ideally the person who was in involved in the QA process at the start of a
subject would also be the person who was involved at the end, but this might not always be the case.
Where there is only one person marking a subject, the QA consultant acts as the moderator where
needed.
School Assessment Committee Secretary – creates A&M reports on S drive prior to pre-subject
moderation. Allocates subjects to members for scrutiny on advice from HOS and develops
spreadsheet listing subjects prior to end of session meeting. Records approval of subject grades and
issues raised during meeting. Transfers feedback for future offerings into A&M Reports after meeting.
Notifies Course Director of any major issues that emerge at either the prior to session or end of
session SAC meeting with regards to subjects within their course.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 26 of 32
School Assessment Committee Chair – oversees the scrutiny of A&M Reports during meeting and
follows up any areas of concern; signs off grades.
School Assessment Committee Member – scrutinises A&M Reports for a subset of subjects in
advance of the meeting and note any concerns or areas for follow up. Contributes to scrutiny of
subjects during meeting
Faculty Assessment Committee Chair - oversees the scrutiny of A&M Reports during meeting and
follows up any areas of concern; signs off grades.
Faculty Assessment Committee Member – Reads minutes of school committees in advance of
meetings and highlights any issues. Contributes to scrutiny of subjects during meetings.
Faculty Assessment Committee Secretary – Assists with the compilation of School Minutes and
matters arising which will form the main agenda items for the Faculty committee as is currently the
case. Prepares the minutes of the faculty meeting.
Course Director - Scrutinises assessment design in each subject within the course as part of course
design and review. Receives feedback from SAC Secretary about major assessment issues emerging
with regards to assessment in subjects within the course at either the pre-session or end of session
meeting of the SAC. Monitors feedback from assessment committees at the conclusion of each
session and follows up with SCV/SCO about changes to assessment required.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 27 of 32
Appendix B. Glossary of terms
Assessment task - An assessment task is any piece of work listed in the Assessment Information
section of a subject outline which a student is required to complete to satisfy the requirements of the
subject. Assessment tasks include, but are not limited to: essays, tests, examinations, laboratory,
clinical or field practicum, projects, compilations, productions, presentations, performances, webbased discussion (See CSU Assessment Principles Policy).
Additional Assessment - A student who marginally fails will be offered the option of completing
additional assessable work which, if completed at the prescribed standard, will result in the student
passing the subject.
Cohort - all students correctly enrolled in a subject.
Criterion referencing - the assessment of the extent to which a student achieved the stated learning
outcomes of a subject. This assessment is carried out against previously specified benchmarks
('criteria'). Where a grade is assigned, it is assigned on the basis of the standard the student has
achieved on each of the criteria. It provides a focus for teaching and learning and specifies for the
lecturer and student what is required from the assessment task. In criterion referenced assessment,
judgments about the quality of students’ performance are made by reference to predetermined criteria
and standards and not by reference to the achievement of other students. Criterion referenced
assessment differs from norm-referenced assessment in which grades are determined by reference to
other students’ performance with only a certain percentage of students able to attain each grade. At
CSU, assessment is not norm-referenced.(CSU Principles Assessment Policy).
Formative Assessment Task – A single assessment task is formative when it provides feedback to
students on how their work can be improved. In this way, the intent is to help students to monitor and
reflect on their learning progress and determine where improvements can be made. (CSU
Assessment Principles Policy).
Moderation - the process of reviewing subject assessment tasks and learning materials to achieve
appropriateness and constructive alignment with learning outcomes. It is also the process of reviewing
and checking the marking and grading of individual assessors to achieve consistency in the
application of subject learning outcomes, performance standards and marking criteria. At CSU,
moderation has three phases: pre-delivery moderation; moderation during delivery; and post-delivery
moderation. (CSU Principles Assessment Policy).
Multi-cohort subject – a subject in which there are concurrent offerings on more than one campus or
in both on-campus and distance education mode.
Standards - statements describing the level of the quality of student performance in relation to the
stated criteria in an assessment task. In standards-based assessment, specific criteria are established
and standards (which are specified levels of the qualities of performance) are developed for those
criteria for each assessment task. A student’s achievement (and marks awarded) can then be
assessed by reference to their standards of performance in various aspects of the assessment task.
In this way, comparisons can be made between students based on their achievement of the
standards. To achieve this, staff will need to identify and articulate clearly the different levels of
performance that are connected to the grade and communicate those standards to students and other
staff. (CSU Assessment Principles Policy).
Summative Assessment Task – Summative assessment: Assessment is summative when it forms
part of the final grade in a subject. The student’s work is assessed in terms of pre-determined
standards so that it can be classified in terms of levels of achievement (grades). (CSU Principles
Assessment Policy).
Supplementary Examination - Supplementary examinations are examinations granted on the basis
of misadventure or extenuating circumstances which prevented a student sitting an official
examination or which adversely affected the student’s performance in an official examination.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 28 of 32
Appendix C. Suggested text for subject outlines on extensions
Extensions
If a student encounters a misadventure or extenuating circumstances (see definitions below) and
needs a short extension of 1-14 days they should copy and paste the following text into an email,
completing the information required, to their Subject Coordinator, including an indication of the work
completed to date and include as an attachment any available evidence (e.g. a medical certificate):
Student No:
Student Name:
Student Contact phone:
I request an extension in the subject:
For Assessment no:
Reason:
Any student experiencing misadventure or extenuating circumstances requiring an extension of longer
than 14 days should discuss their circumstances with their Subject Coordinator and consider a formal
application for Special Consideration and a Grade Pending using the form available at
http://student.csu.edu.au/administration/forms#assessment .
Misadventure
Circumstances contributing to misadventure can include:
• Medical reasons;
• Family/personal reasons – including death or severe medical or personal problems
• Employment related reasons – such as a substantial change to routine employment
arrangements or status
The following circumstances would not be considered misadventure:
• Routine demands of employment;
• Difficulties adjusting to University life, to the self discipline needed to study effectively, and to
the demands of academic work;
• Stress or anxiety normally associated with examinations, required assessment tasks or any
aspect of course work;
• Routine need for financial support;
• Lack of knowledge of requirements of academic work
(See CSU Special Consideration Policy, Section 3 in the CSU Policy Library at
https://www.csu.edu.au/about/policy ).
Extenuating circumstances
Circumstances that can be deemed to be extenuating include:
• Administrative problems – such as the late receipt of teaching materials, enrolment errors or
delays;
• Sporting or cultural commitments – where a student has been selected to participate in a
state, national or international sporting or cultural event;
• Military commitments – where a student is a member of the armed forces involved in a
compulsory exercise;
• Legal commitments – where a student is called for jury duty or is subpoenaed to attend a
court, tribunal, etc.
• Other events that pose a major obstacle to the student proceeding satisfactorily with their
studies.
The following would not be regarded as extenuating circumstances:
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 29 of 32
•
•
Demands of sport, clubs, and social or extra-curricular activity (other than selection for state,
national or international sporting or cultural events);
Difficulties with the English language during examinations.
(See CSU Special Consideration Policy, Section 3).
Penalty for late submissions
In the absence of an approved extension, or a University defined misadventure or extenuating
circumstances, the penalty for assessment items submitted after the due date is 10% of the
assessment task value per calendar day.
For example, for an assessment task worth 40% of the subject assessment, the penalty for late
submission will be 4 marks out of 40 per calendar day. If a student’s work is assessed against the
marking criteria to be worthy of a mark of 30 out of 40 but is submitted two days late, the student will
receive a mark of 22 out of 40.
Additional Assessments (AA)
This subject is open to additional assessment, as specified in Assessment Regulation 5. Students
receiving a raw score of 45-49 will be offered the opportunity to submit an Additional Assessment,
which will be designed by the Subject Convenor or Coordinator to ensure the student achieves all the
subject learning outcomes in order to achieve a PS grade. As required within CSU assessment
regulation 5.2 there is a fee attached to the student acceptance of an offer of an opportunity to
undertake additional assessment.
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 30 of 32
Appendix D. Flowchart Showing Procedures for Addressing Unsatisfactory Performance on Professional Experience Placement
Site identifies concerns with student
progress in placement
Site continues support of
student in communication
with PEU. Student is not
deemed to be at risk; no
Student meets standards of
placement and final report
is satisfactory (i.e., no
Causing Concern grades).
Subject Coordinator
submits SY grade.
* PERC is made up of
the Subject
Coordinator, PEU
Director, ULO/PELO
(if available) & PEPC
Site and PEU implement “At Risk”
process at midpoint of
placement.DSP developed and
monitored
Student fails to meet standards of
placement; final report grades student
as Causing Concern on at least one
St d d
On receipt of report by PEU student’s
case report is prepared by PEPC and
referred to DPEU. DPEU convenes
PERC* meeting within 20 working
days of receipt of report & grade to be
i t i d t TA
Alternate HOS then convenes a PEAC
meeting within 10 working days.
PEAC Decision
PEAC Decision
PEAC decides not to exclude.
PEAC decides to exclude
Chair of PEAC advises student of decision of
PEAC
PEAC determines that student will be
excluded exclusion from course & the
prescribed period of exclusion. PEAC Chair
advises DSA of outcome and notifies the
Executive Dean, DPEU, HOS & SAC (for
reporting purposes) of exclusion decision.
Chair of PEAC advises student that enrolment
in subject will be maintained and student is now
eligible for placement.
PERC to PEAC
DPEU informs the Alternate HOS of the
decision to award a US grade to the
student and recommendation to PEAC that
student be excluded from course.
Student re-enrols in subject (OR enrolment is
maintained) at next offering and is eligible for
placement
Where at risk process was
not implemented or
contributing factors beyond
the student’s control are
accepted by PERC
Maintain TA grade and
require student to repeat
placement at new site, as
soon as possible. Other
subject requirements are
not repeated. DPEU
advises the student of
outcome.
PEU organises repeat
placement
(T
l t 1)
DSA notifies student of Exclusion and
process for appeal.
Student agrees to
Exclusion process.
PERC* Meeting – considers evidence and
determines recommendation to HOS or PEAC
Where at risk and DSP process was
implemented, and case documents
and reports from supervising staff
indicate ongoing concerns with
teaching competence
US grade is awarded for EPT subject.
PERC decision: Recommended for
exclusion
DPEU advises student that recommendation
has been made for their exclusion from the
course. Student may re-enrol, but no
placement will be arranged until exclusion
process is completed.
Subject Coordinator submits COG
form to HOS.
Glossary:
Alternate HOS
PERC decision: Not recommended
for exclusion
DPEU advises student of decision of
US grade & requirement to re-enrol in
subject, repeating all subject
requirements, at the next offering
DPEU advises student of appeal
procedures
Student re-enrols in subject at next
offering. If Exclusion is being
considered student will not be able
Student submits application
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
to start placement until Exclusion
for Review of Grade as per
Revised December, 2014
process is completed.
ROG process.
Student appeals
Exclusion in writing to
the Executive Dean
Executive Dean’s considers case in
accordance with Section 6 – Appeals against
Exclusion (Academic Progress Policy).
PERC decision: US
PERC decision: TA
**PEAC membership =
Alternate HOS and
student’s Course Director
PEAC** Meeting – determines whether to exclude student
from course or not; and if applicable, the period of
Page 31 of 32
COG
DPEU
DSA
DSP
HOS
PEAC
PELO
PEPC
PERC
PEU
SAC
SY
TA
ULO
US
Head of the School that is not responsible for the
student’s course delivery.
Change of Grade
Director, Professional Experience Unit
Division of Student Administration
Developmental Support Plan for student at risk
Head of School
Professional Experience Assessment Committee
Professional Experience Liaison Officer
Professional Experience & Partnerships Coordinator
Professional Experience Results Committee
Professional Experience Unit, Faculty of Education
School Assessment Committee
Satisfactory Grade
Grade yet to be finalised.
University Liaison Officer
Unsatisfactory Grade
Executive Dean – Decision
Executive Dean – Decision
Exclusion is confirmed
Exclusion is rescinded
Executive Dean determines
exclusion will proceed and
advises DSA of outcome.
DSA notifies student as per
Section 5 of Academic Progress
Policy.
Executive Dean determines
that student will not be
excluded and advises DSA,
PEAC, DPEU, HOS & SAC of
outcome.
DSA notifies student as per
Section 5 of Academic Progress
Policy.
(Template 6)
Note: All documentation to be filed in TRIM by
the PEU
Appendix E. Assessment and Moderation Record
Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines
Revised December, 2014
Page 32 of 32
Faculty of Education
Assessment and Moderation Record
Instructions
This form is to be used to record:
1. the ongoing review of subjects including the constructive alignment of assessment, learning outcomes and
subject design;
2. the quality assurance of subject outlines prior to publication in MSI;
3. the assessment moderation processes to assure quality and validity of marking; and
4. the final grade distribution for the subject.
This report is to be completed by subject convenors for cross-campus internal subjects, and subject coordinators
and nominal subject coordinators for single campus and distance subjects, and the designated quality assurance
consultant for the MSI. There should be consultation with Education Designers and other staff involved in the
subject as part of this process. The report is saved in the S drive where it will be available to Course Directors and
to Assessment Committees for scrutiny at the end of the session for grade sign-off purposes.
Parts 1 and 2 must be completed prior to the subject outline being published in MSI, and as part of this quality
assurance process.
Part 3 is to be completed during subject delivery as moderation processes occur. Where there is a single person
coordinating and marking in a subject, the Quality Assurance Consultant will assist with moderation processes.
Part 4 is to be completed at the end of the subject prior to grades being finalised in Gradebook and submitted for
sign-off.
Part 5 will be completed by Assessment Committees and the record will be returned to subject convenors and
coordinators for any future action, as well as being kept on S drive for future reference and external moderation.
Where the form asks you to sign as Subject Coordinator/Convenor or Quality Assurance Consultant, entering your
name and the date will be considered to be signing the form where electronic signatures have not been used.
Subject Information
Subject code:
Subject name:
School:
Session:
Subject Coordinator:
Nominal Subject Coordinator (where relevant):
Subject Convenor (for cross-campus subjects):
Quality Assurance Consultant/s:
Checklist
Pre-delivery Assessment Design Moderation Record
Pre-delivery Subject Outline Moderation Record
During delivery Subject Moderation Record
A grade distribution and recommendations report
The record is complete and ready for assessment committee scrutiny
Page 1 of 6
FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14
Faculty of Education
Part 1
Assessment Design Moderation Record
The subject was designed through a Smart Learning supported
course design process, and the assessment items in the subject
outline are identical to the version in Smart Tools, including the
task descriptions, detailed requirements, assessment criteria
and grading rubric.
Yes
No
Design Moderation Record) does not
need to be completed
(proceed to Part 2)
Yes
This subject has had no changes to assessment items or
learning objectives since the previous Assessment and
Moderation Record.
If Yes, Part 1, (the Assessment
No
If Yes, Part 1, (the Assessment
Design Moderation Record) does not
need to be completed
(proceed to Part 2)
List recommendations from the
previous report that have been, or
are going to be, followed up, if any:
Subject
Coordinator
or Nominal
Criteria
Please enter an X to indicate whether each requirement has been met or not
met, or enter NA in the Met column if not applicable to this subject.
Met
Not
Met
Quality
Assurer
Met
Not
Met
1. The learning design (including expected hours for learning tasks) has been articulated
and alignment to the outcomes and assessment is clear
2. The overall assessment design is appropriate for the subject
3. Subject outcomes and assessment tasks are aligned and this is made explicit in the
rationale for each task
4. The requirements of the assessment tasks are clearly described
5. The marking criteria for each assessment task reflect clearly defined standards of
performance for each grade level
6. The marking criteria for each assessment task are consistent with the learning outcomes
of the subject
7. Exam papers have been cross-checked and proofread.
Comments:
Signed (Subject Convenor/Coordinator):
Name
Signature
Date
Name
Signature
Date
Signed (Quality Assurer):
Page 2 of 6
FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14
Faculty of Education
Part 2
Subject Outline Moderation Record
Subject
Coordinator
Criteria
Please enter an X to indicate whether each requirement has been met or
not met, or enter NA in the Met column if not applicable to this subject.
Met
Not
Met
Quality
assurer
Not
Met
Met
1. Subject name, school information and other items of general information are
correct
2. Subject coordinator and other teaching staff (where known) contact details
and consultation times have been provided and are accurate
3. Academic biography matches the subject coordinator name
4. A study schedule has been included (or details as to its location) showing
learning activities for all weeks of the session
5. Prescribed textbook details appear correct and the text is current
6. Procedures for obtaining an extension are included and the penalty for late
submission has been made clear and reflects Faculty guidelines
7. The assessment due dates are consistent throughout the outline
8. Assessment tasks are clearly described and include rationale and marking
criteria
9. The assessment item value adds up to 100% including subparts and optional
components
10. Paragraph spacing, formatting and fonts are consistent throughout
11. Spelling and grammar are correct and hyperlinks work throughout
Comments:
(NB: Do not sign this section as complete until the subject outline is ready for publishing in the MSI)
Signed (Subject Convenor/Coordinator):
Name
Signature
Date
Name
Signature
Date
Signed (Quality Assurer):
Page 3 of 6
FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14
Faculty of Education
Part 3
During Subject Moderation Record
Yes
This subject is a workplace learning subject graded
Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory.
If Yes, Part 3, (During
Subject Moderation) does
No
not need to be completed
Please register the date when each of the steps towards moderation occurred (or NA if not
required) and any comments you have about the step.
Ass 1
Ass 2
Ass 3
Ass 4
Ass 5
Step 1:
Subject team discussed criteria and marking rubrics and reached
consensus about expectations.
Markers provided with clear guidelines.
Step 2:
Sample scripts graded by coordinator/convenor, discussed as models
of expectations and shared between all markers within a week of
submission.
Step 3:
A sample of FL and HD assignments and at least one of each other
grade level cross checked by coordinator/ convenor/QA Consultant.
Step 4:
Overall feedback for students prepared and posted to Interact site.
Step 5:
Wrap up conversation for each assignment held. Recommendations
for future delivery noted.
Step 6:
Convenor checks all grades have been entered into gradebook on all
campuses.
Marks released to students for each assignment.
Step 7:
Moderation meeting or email discussion with teaching/marking team
and QAC held at the end of the session.
Comments, Notes, Actions, Additional people involved
Signed (Subject Convenor/Coordinator):
Name
Signature
Date
Name
Signature
Date
Signed (Quality Assurance Consultant):
Page 4 of 6
FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14
Faculty of Education
Part 4
Grade Distribution Report and Recommendations
Campus/ Mode
HD
DI
CR
PS
FL
FW
AW
GP
TA
AA
AE
SX
IP
Total
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Comments about the grade distribution including any circumstances that may have led to this particular distribution, along with
a causation of fail summary where failure rate is greater than 25%
Recommendations for future offerings
Comment on any aspects of assessment that need to be reviewed for the next implementation of the subject.
e.g. Do assessment items align with the objectives? Does there need to be a change in spread of assessments? What other
styles of assessment may better assess student knowledge? What changes may be needed to ensure that the schedule and
learning design support successful completion of the assessment items?
NB: Do not sign this section as complete if the entire subject or an entire cohort have been allocated a TA grade
Signed (Subject Convenor/Coordinator):
Name
Signature
Page 5 of 6
Date
FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14
Faculty of Education
Part 5
Assessment Committee Recommendations
School and Faculty Assessment Committee comments or recommendations:
Signed (Assessment Committee Member):
Name
Signature
Page 6 of 6
Date
FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14