Policy Supported:
Procedure Supported:
Audience:
Contact Officer:
Assessment Policy 2014 January 01
Assessment Procedure 2014 January 01
Assessment Policy Exemption Procedure
Staff, Students
Secretary to Learning and Teaching
Committee
Phone: See
Directory
Campus
Printed copies are for reference only. Please refer to the electronic copy in
Policy and Procedure Manager™ [the electronic policy management system
(EPMS)] to ensure you are referring to the latest version.
Preamble:
These Guidelines are to be read in conjunction with the Assessment Policy and
Assessment Procedure . The information provided in the Assessment Guidelines enables staff to implement honest and creative assessment that operates in accordance with
Murdoch University’s overarching ethic.
Guidelines:
1.
PURPOSE OF HIGH QUALITY ASSESSMENT ( Assessment Policy Clause 2.0
)
There are many possibilities for designing high quality assessment. Various approaches to assessment are defined and explained below.
1.1.
1.2.
Diagnostic Assessment
Assessment can be conducted at the beginning of a unit in order to provide teaching staff with information on what students know prior to the commencement of a unit. Such diagnostic assessment ascertains the extent to which students possess presumed knowledge. It can help prevent assumptions being made about what students know and allows teaching staff to adapt their teaching accordingly. Diagnostic assessment may also provide effective feedback to students on what they should have learnt in another unit. This does not contribute to the final grade.
Formative Assessment
An important factor determining learning effectiveness is the quality of the feedback students receive on their performance while they are learning.
Assessment that is conducted to provide students with feedback on their performance and rarely contributes to their final grade is known as formative assessment. To be effective formative assessment should be conducted throughout the teaching period beginning at an early stage, and feedback to students should include suggestions on how performance might be improved. Formative assessment also provides teaching staff with valuable feedback on what students are learning and how effectively they are teaching.
1.3.
Summative Assessment
The main reason summative assessment is carried out is to provide students, academic staff, the institution and employers with evidence of the extent to which students have achieved intended learning outcomes.
Page 1

1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
To fulfil this purpose summative assessment must be valid and reliable as well as being systematically recorded and communicated.
Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment
Assessment practices of academic staff may include opportunities for students to develop the skills of self-assessment, which is an important outcome of professional education and a key skill for lifelong and independent learning. Students can be encouraged to assess their own performance, and that of their peers, and to compare their own perceptions of that performance with the judgements made by academic staff and by their peers.
Authentic Assessment
“Authentic” has a specific meaning in the context of assessment, especially in professional contexts associated with the subject or discipline. To be authentic, assessment tasks should be seen by students to be challenging, interesting and meaningful and, where possible, should be related to reallife applications. Authentic assessment has the capacity to provide students with motivation to engage in learning.
Criterion and Norm-referenced Assessment
Criterion-referenced assessment involves the assessment of student performance against pre-determined criteria related to the learning outcomes of the unit. Norm-referenced assessment assesses student performance against the performance of other students. A criterionreferenced approach to assessment policy and practice is advocated.
With criterion-referenced assessment, the criteria by which work is to be judged are made explicit and the grade awarded is intended to directly reflect how well the student has met the criteria. Within a purely criterionreferenced assessment system, students are not judged in comparison to each other, every student might achieve the highest grade or none might.
In contrast, with normative assessment, marks are awarded based on a predetermined distribution. The most common form of normative assessment, sometimes called ‘grading on the curve’ or ‘bell curve marking’, assumes marks are distributed according to a standard distribution curve. Certain proportions of each grade are awarded, for example, one third each passes and credit passes, one sixth each distinctions and high distinctions. This means that each student's grade on the unit is determined in part by how well other students on the unit do.
Criterion-referenced assessment is the preferred method of assessment at
Murdoch University because, by definition, it provides students with clear information on the standards of work which attract a particular mark or grade. It also implies that final grading depends on each student's learning, regardless of the performance of other students in the class or cohort. The literature on adult learning stresses that criterion-referenced assessment is the most appropriate approach to use when the aim is to foster individual learning and development – rather than selection and ranking. Criterion-referenced assessment is educationally sound because it conveys a clear message that each student can take control over their own learning. It is increasingly clear in the research literature that 'grading on the curve' discourages many students to strive for excellence.
Furthermore, under a criterion-referenced assessment system, feedback to students is particularly useful because the focus is on how their current performance matches up to initially determined standards - which are known to them – and how they can improve their performance to achieve a higher mark or grade.
Page 2

2.
GOOD ASSESSMENT PRACTICE ( Assessment Policy Clause 4.0
)
Students should have the opportunity to show what they have learned in different ways and at different times. There is some ambiguity about what constitutes a different type or method of assessment. Generally, it is not considered a different type of assessment if the only difference is whether it is supervised or not.
Judgment will be needed in order to maintain the spirit of the policy that students should have the opportunity to demonstrate their learning in different ways. The
Centre for University Learning and Teaching website lists a wide range of assessment types and their strengths and weaknesses
( http://our.murdoch.edu.au/CUTL/ ).
There are many valid methods of assessing student work. Unit Coordinators are encouraged to vary assessment types over the breadth of a unit. For example, a student may be assessed by way of research assignments, problem questions, vivas, exams, self-assessment, peer assessment, group work, assessed participation and/or work integrated learning. Assessment may also include individually negotiated tasks.
2.A ASSESSMENT QUANTUM
The following points specify requirements in relation to the maximum levels of assessment in a unit:
2.A.1. A minimum of two assessment items and no more than four with the volume of each item reflecting its percentage contribution to a student’s overall mark.
2.A.2. A continuous assessment item with multiple coherent parts may be included in a unit (for example multiple short tests/quizzes, a series of laboratory reports or a portfolio of written exercises, design artefacts or problem-solving solutions). This will constitute a single assessment item.
2.A.3. Undergraduate unit (level 7) assessment quantum (3 credit points):
4000-4500 words equivalent.
2.A.4. Postgraduate unit, including Honours (level 8 and level 9), assessment quantum (3 credit points): 5000-6000 words equivalent.
2.A.5. First year units should have a summative assessment task with feedback provided to students by the end of week 4.
2.1.
Self Assessment
Self assessment may be used to develop in students the ability to think critically about their learning, to determine what criteria should be used in judging their work and to apply these objectively to their own work in order to facilitate their lifelong learning. Self assessment may be undertaken simply as a learning activity within the unit requirements.
There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to self promote and Unit Coordinators must be sensitive to such differences and provide a proforma which increases the likelihood that students are able to judge by the same criteria.
Mechanisms which can be used include:
2.1.1.
Self Marking
Students are provided with detailed model answers and commentaries for the purpose of comparing their own responses. In addition, a marking sheet is provided upon which students are asked to detail the differences between the model responses and their own and to award a mark. Teaching staff moderate the responses maintaining or modifying the marks awarded.
Page 3

2.1.2.
Class Generated Criteria for Self Assessment
Assessment criteria for an assessment item are generated and agreed by the class in discussion with the staff member. These criteria are used by each student to develop a critique of their own assessment item. Both the assessment item and the critique are provided to the staff member who marks the assignment and then compares that critique with the student's. Marks may be awarded for both the assignment and the critique.
2.2.
Peer Assessment
Peer assessment may be used to develop in students the ability to work, to be critical of others’ work and receive critical appraisals of their own work.
Peer assessment may be undertaken simply as a learning activity within the unit requirements.
Peer assessment must ensure that students are treated with fairness, consistency and respect by other students and are not subjected to unnecessary embarrassment. There should be clear guidelines and criteria for students judging each others’ work. A mechanism which can be used:
2.2.1.
Peer Marking
The assessment item and the assessment criteria are discussed by the staff and students. There is an agreed understanding as to the learning outcomes required. Completed assessment items are randomly distributed to students who are required to complete a marking sheet identifying whether their peer had met the assessment criteria. These marks are moderated by the staff member and together with the peer marking sheets are returned with the assessment item.
The assessment item and the assessment criteria are discussed by the staff and students. There is an agreed understanding as to the learning outcomes required. Each student in a group (e.g. a tutorial group) is then required to complete an assessment sheet on each other student’s work (e.g. a tutorial presentation or display). These marks are collated and possibly moderated by the staff member to form an overall mark. The overall mark and peer marking sheets
(anonymously) are provided to the student.
2.3.
Equivalence of Assessment
Equivalent assessments are ones where each are of equal value, worth or importance to the assessor in making judgements about a learner’s achievements or performance. When a unit is offered in differing modes or locations, there may be valid reasons for varying the assessment. However, when this occurs, it is important that equivalent assessment is in place. This does not imply exact or equal assessment. When Unit Coordinators are establishing equivalent assessments the comparability framework
(Attachment 1) should be used to develop and ensure equivalence. Various characteristics identified in the framework must be equivalent.
2.4.
Class attendance and participation
As a general rule, class attendance cannot form part of the graded assessment. However, there are exceptions to this rule (see Assessment
Policy Clause 4.6
). Reasons for requiring mandatory attendance must go beyond the purported educational benefit to the individual and may involve
(i) statutory issues such as mandatory occupational health and safety training, (ii) professional accreditation requirement where there is a clear written guideline from the accrediting body that a minimum number of hours
Page 4

should be spent on an activity, (iii) failure to attend impacts the learning of other students in for example, team or group activities.
Where class attendance requirements are part of the assessment for the unit, the Unit Coordinator will give due consideration to the student’s length of absence in determining any exemption. The Unit Coordinator should, in the first instance, consider opportunities for ‘making up’ missed classes. Further consideration should be given to assessing the student under the same criteria as an External student, prior to providing any alternative assessment methods.
2.5.
Assessed Participation
Assessment of participation may be used to develop in students the orientation and ability to engage in, and contribute to, group learning processes such as those involved in tutorials, seminars, laboratories and workshops.
There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to engage publicly in certain activities. This does not mean that such activities should not be required if they are relevant to the achievement of the unit objectives. However, Unit Coordinators must be sensitive to differences such as those associated with culture and gender. They must provide clear criteria by which participation in those activities will be judged. The marking of participation may often involve elements of peer and self assessment. A mechanism which can be used:
2.5.1.
Marking participation
The learning objectives for the tutorials, seminars, laboratories and workshops are discussed by the staff and students. The Unit
Coordinator/tutor provides the criteria by which participation will be judged, for example, task focus/level of engagement with task, quality of analysis of arguments, capacity to listen, responsiveness to feedback/criticism, risk-taking behaviour. The mark awarded for participation is accompanied by feedback on the criteria.
2.6.
Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is an adherence to five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in all work. Academic integrity is fundamental to the operation of all scholarship, whether it be original research or undergraduate assignments. It ensures that proper credit is given to those who do the work and that their intellectual contribution is acknowledged. It ensures that proper evaluation and feedback of performance can be given and finally it buttresses the worth and reputation of academic awards on the basis they have been honestly earned. Murdoch
University regards academic integrity as a fundamental value of student learning. It requires all students enrolled in the University to adhere to academic integrity in fulfilling each assessment task.
The University has developed an educational tool on academic integrity which all students new to the university will be required to undertake. The Centre for University Learning and Teaching provides further information within the following webpage:
Development/Academic-misconduct/ http://our.murdoch.edu.au/Educational-
Academic Staff are to be vigilant in detecting and investigating suspected instances of dishonesty in student work submitted for assessment, in accordance with the Student Discipline Regulations and Student Discipline
Procedures .
Page 5

Forms of Academic Misconduct include, but are not limited to:
1
2
Inappropriate/inadequate
Acknowledgement
Collusion
Material copied word for word which is acknowledged as paraphrased but should have been in quotation marks, or material paraphrased without appropriate acknowledgement of its source.
Material produced in concert, collectively or in collaboration with others and giving the false impression that the work is the sole output of the student submitting it for assessment.
3
4
5
6
Verbatim copying
(Plagiarism)
Ghost writing
Purloining
Cheating in Supervised
Assessment
Material copied word for word or exactly duplicated without any acknowledgement of the source.
Assignment written by third party and represented by student as her or his own work.
Material copied from another student's assignment or work without that person's knowledge.
May include, but not be limited to, material brought in contrary to instructions, copying from another student’s work, seeking outside assistance through the use of electronic device.
3.
ASSESSED GROUP WORK ( Assessment Policy Clause 5.0
)
3.1.
Collaborative learning is an important element of the learning process at
Murdoch University. It may be used for a variety of purposes, for example: a) as a process for teaching interactive working techniques (teamwork, negotiation skills, role allocation, task completion and conflict management); b) as a means for enhancing students’ understanding of course content
(peer support, clarification and refinement of concepts through discussion, rehearsal, and the resolution of conflict); and c) as a means of demonstrating achievement of graduate attributes.
Group work, under proper conditions, can support student learning and be a positive experience. Under less than ideal conditions, however, it can become the vehicle for acrimony and conflict. It may also impose a host of unexpected stresses on, for example, students with overcrowded home and work schedules living long distances from the University. Helpful resources on good practice in group work assessment can be found at: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/group.html
http://www.olt.gov.au/resources?text=assessing%20groupwork
Collaborative learning may occur without the product of that learning being assessed through a group project or group assessment. The skills developed in group projects, however, are vital in work and community life since many tasks and projects are performed by teams, not separate individuals.
Learning to be part of a team also involves accepting that a collective judgement will often be made of the whole project. Where the development
Page 6

of collaborative learning processes, teamwork or joint production is seen as an important outcome of a course/unit, a well-rounded assessment regime is expected to include some group assessment.
Where students are required to complete assignment tasks in groups and/or to be assessed as a group they should be provided with effective material, instruction and support.
3.2.
The management of the planning, development and implementation of processes and procedures for learning through group work should consider that students have other commitments which make it difficult to attend the
University outside of scheduled class hours. In units that use types of group assessment it is recommended that some scheduled class times be dedicated to group meetings. In-class supervision and discussion of group assignments should be built into the schedule of classes in a way that reflects the weighting of assessment allocated to group work.
Staff should provide advice and support to students about the formation and conduct of groups and, in consultation with students, establish ground rules about: a) the selection of group members; b) the role(s) of group members and the responsibility of members to each other; c) the conduct of group meetings – frequency and timing and group contact outside of scheduled class times; d) the management of group conflict (the stress should be on conflict as a breakdown in the system/process rather than the attachment of blame to individuals. If employees in the workplace, for example, are unable to deal with a problem they are expected to take it to someone who can deal with it); e) feedback stages during the assignment period to report group progress and final outcomes; and f) assessing the real contribution of each member to the group project,
(e.g. using individual process diaries, peer/external assessment of collaborative process and assignment content).
3.3.
The weighting for group assessment in the determination of unit grades requires careful consideration, keeping in mind the Assessment Policy which requires Unit Coordinators to ensure that they can judge the individual contribution of each student and that grades properly reflect the levels of performance of each student. Group assessment, like any assessment must meet the criteria of rigour, validity, fairness and appropriateness to the unit objectives.
It is generally preferable that assessment take into consideration the collaborative process (i.e. the way individuals collaborated during the project) not just the assignment content in the final group document and/or presentation. Refer to the Assessment Policy (Clause 5.0) and Assessment
Procedure 1.2
, for assessment requirements for group work.
4.
ENSURING FAIR ASSESSMENT ( Assessment Policy Clause 9.0
)
4.1.
Feedback
4.1.1.
Feedback should show respect for diversity and individuality and should be directed at the work rather than the student. a) Feedback should be given to students as soon as possible. b) Feedback should accompany the mark or grade.
Page 7

c) Feedback should be critical, but supportive to learning, so as to encourage a student’s confident scrutiny of their future work. d) Feedback should be related to learning outcomes and given assessment criteria, so that students are very clear on what was and will be expected of them. e) Feedback on work should go beyond editing (grammar, spelling, mathematical notation, presentation) and link to the broader learning outcomes.
4.1.2.
Timing
Where a specific assessment task has a function to improve student performance within the unit, it must provide informative and constructive feedback in time to be useful for subsequent assessment in the unit. The timing of assessment components in the unit must then consider both whether the students have had sufficient time to master the materials and skills addressed in the practical assessment task and whether sufficient time has been allowed for constructive and informative marking to provide feedback to the student.
Similarly, where ongoing activities are being assessed as for example in workplace based units feedback must be timed to allow the student and appropriate period in which to improve this performance.
4.1.3.
As we increasingly use electronic means of exchanging and storing documents, staff familiar with marking on hard copy, may find it useful to explore the tools for adding feedback to electronically submitted assignments available through the LMS.
LMS, is the preferred submission platform system of collection and storage of assignments. Because the LMS system requires each student to login, and any one student cannot access another’s submission or personal details, the LMS complies with privacy laws.
Unit Coordinators should ensure that they upload and return the correct assignment, and not mistakenly send one belonging to another student. This can be avoided by including the student name in the document title.
4.2.
Comparability of Marking across Tutors
Unit Coordinators must take steps to ensure that marks awarded by tutors are equitable. Unit Coordinators shall provide tutors with marking guides and, where appropriate, solution lists. Where possible, they should also meet with tutors to consider marking techniques to ensure consistency in the allocation of marks by different tutors. In particular, the link between numerical marks and final grades, the meaning of those grades, and the broad distribution anticipated should be discussed carefully with tutors prior to any marking taking place. The purpose should be to minimise or to remove inconsistencies between tutors on the same unit, or inconsistencies from offering to offering of the same unit.
4.3.
Formal Moderation
Moderation is a quality assurance strategy directed at ensuring the reliability and validity of assessment. It is a process of independently evaluating whether there is consistency in the standard of marking being applied across particular assessment components or whether significant deviations have occurred from some previously defined standard. In a Murdoch context, it is normally applied in situations where there is potential for the validity of assessment results to be compromised, or extra reassurance on the validity of assessment outcomes is required. The details of the moderation process may vary with each situation.
Page 8

4.3.1.
What are the prerequisites for moderation?
Effective moderation requires: (1) that the objectives of the assessment component, and the criteria on which marks will be awarded, are explicit and well justified, and are well explained to both students and markers; (2) that clear, well-understood marking guides are used; and (3) that there is a mutually agreed and timely process of feedback to ensure that corrections to marking strategies or levels of assessment (i.e. “soft” versus “hard” marking) can be appropriately applied. Under these circumstances, it is possible to analyse how significant inconsistencies or deviations from a standard arise, and to correct errors before students are misled on their performance by inappropriate, inadequate or missing feedback.
4.3.2.
What is the scope of moderation?
Where moderation is invoked for a unit it applies to each significant assessment component that falls within the criteria requiring moderation. The sample size of assessment submissions moderated for each assessment component should be sufficient to establish whether significant issues or deviations have occurred in the marking strategy applied by the original markers. At Murdoch this will generally be ten scripts or 10% of the submissions per assessment component; whichever is the larger number.
4.3.3.
Who performs moderation and how do they do it?
The moderation process involves a person other than the original marker assessing the way marks have been awarded for a representative sample of student submissions. The person selected for this role must have assessment competency in that their skills base should be such that they are competent to detect errors, discrepancies or ineptitude in the marking process of a particular unit. The moderation may involve a simple scrutiny of marks awarded, and the criteria used, without an actual re-mark; a re-mark informed by the marks awarded by and/or the comments of the original marker; or a “double blind” re-mark in which the original marks awarded and comments are not available to the second marker. In all cases, the assessment is made using a marking guide.
The time taken for these different strategies will differ, and each will be appropriate under different circumstances. Where there is an initial presumption of marking problems, or a student has successfully made a case for a re-mark, the blind re-mark is most appropriate. Where there is simply a monitoring requirement, for example in the case of educational partners teaching Murdoch units, or using Murdoch IP, scrutiny of marks awarded or an informed remark will suffice. For moderation requirements in Educational
Partnerships (e.g. offshore partnerships) double blind re-marks will not be used.
4.3.4.
What must be done if moderation reveals a problem?
Where moderation indicates a problem, it is crucial that an investigation is initiated as soon as possible to establish that a discrepancy exists and determine if the issue is one of marking strategy or process, or the issue is one of student learning. Where the moderation affects a unit not run through an educational partnership, the Unit Coordinator should communicate as soon as possible with the marker or markers affected. Where an educational partnership is involved, the School Dean, through liaison with the
Page 9

Educational Partnerships Service Centre, should contact the appropriate person in the partner organisation to initiate discussion.
The Unit Coordinator must satisfy themselves, after discussion with the marker or markers, that the cause of the problem has been corrected and the issue will not be repeated. If, in the opinion of the
Unit Coordinator, the issue will have a substantial effect on student grades, then corrections to the marks must be initiated as soon as possible, either by systematic corrections following the marking guide or by a re-mark. Where an educational partnership is involved and the students are enrolled in a Murdoch Unit, the Unit Coordinator must consult with the School Dean who has the authority to require a total re-mark by an educational partner. Similarly where Murdoch IP is used in units belonging to an educational partner, the School Dean may ask the partner organisation for a re-mark.
4.3.5.
Who has responsibility for moderation?
Ultimate responsibility for ensuring that moderation occurs in units where it is required lies with the School Dean who has the primary responsibility for the quality of academic offerings within the School.
Operational responsibility will generally devolve to the Unit
Coordinator, unless the Unit Coordinator is the single teacher and marker in the unit. The selection of markers who will moderate within a unit must be approved by the School Dean.
4.3.6.
What are the moderation requirements of Educational
Partnership Agreements?
For the University’s offshore educational partnerships, the normal model is that assignments are marked by staff of the partner institution and moderated by Murdoch staff, whilst examinations are marked by Murdoch staff. However, the moderation requirements of some educational partnership agreements may differ from this standard. It is the responsibility of both School Deans and Unit
Coordinators to make themselves aware, through the Office of
Educational Partnerships, of what partnership agreements apply to the units under their management and the moderation requirements of each partnership. It is also the responsibility of School Deans to ensure that Unit Coordinators (and other School Deans where applicable) of units which are part of the course offerings from their school are informed of when a unit is required to be mounted as part of an educational partnership, so that the moderation requirements can be planned in a timely fashion.
4.3.7.
Adjustment of tutorial group means is not moderation
Simple adjustment of tutorial group means (sometimes incorrectly referred to as “scaling”) occurs when comparison of marks across tutorial or demonstrator student groups within a unit reveals substantial differences in the severity of marking between different tutors or demonstrators over several assessment components. At the discretion of the Unit Coordinator, the marks are retrospectively adjusted to bring the group means into line. Adjustment of tutorial group means is not moderation, since it does not involve any systematic ongoing sampling for re-marking or scrutiny of individual marks awarded. Adjustment of tutorial group means should only be used where there is clear evidence of a substantial discrepancy in group means (e.g. a range of 25% or greater across groups with substantial numbers), where there is no evidence that this difference arises from differences in student ability or engagement (i.e. all groups appear to be equivalent) and where the overall correction
Page 10

applied for each assessment task does not move any individual student’s overall score for the unit by more than 5% (e.g. moves the total score reported on the final assessment sheet from 60% to
65%). The possible use of adjustment of tutorial group means in the unit must also be flagged to students by an appropriate statement in the assessment section of the Unit Information and Learning Guide.
Systematic use of thoroughly prepared marking guides and thorough induction into the unit assessment strategy for each tutor or demonstrator should substantially reduce the need for adjustment of tutorial group means.
5.
SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENT: Guidelines for Unit Coordinators exercising discretion ( Assessment Policy Clause 11.0
)
5.1.
It is reasonable to offer Supplementary Assessment [Supplementary
Assignment (SA) or Supplementary Exam (SX)] to a student where they can demonstrate that:
5.1.1.
They have met a significant proportion of the learning objectives for the unit and passed at least one assessment item, such that a further opportunity to demonstrate that they can achieve a pass in their area of weakness would allow them to progress. or
5.1.2.
Their final result was a consequence of failure in a single item of assessment, especially where that item is weighted heavily (e.g. they pass continuous assessment items but fail the exam).
Other considerations when 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 are inconclusive include:
5.1.3.
Where the student has demonstrated a commitment to the unit e.g. by attending classes regularly or consistently engaging with the unit as an external student, and by submitting assignments on time.
5.1.4.
Where their performance in this unit is at odds with their previous academic record, and/or the Unit Coordinator is aware of reasons which may explain their poor performance.
5.1.5.
Where the unit is the last unit the student needs to meet the requirements of their course (major or minor) and/or degree, unless
Clause 5.2.1 applies.
5.2.
It is not advisable to offer Supplementary Assessment [Supplementary
Assignment (SA) or Supplementary Exam (SX)] to a student where:
5.2.1.
Notwithstanding Clause 5.1.5, the unit involved is the capstone unit in a Bachelor degree.
5.2.2.
They have met few of the learning objectives for the unit, or marginally failed most or all assessment items, or have failed a significant piece of assessment which has learning objectives necessary to the student’s achievement of the learning objectives in subsequent units.
5.2.3.
They did not engage with the unit and/or failed to submit multiple items of assessment.
5.3.
Unit Coordinators must exercise their discretion such that:
5.3.1.
The decision reached is based solely the student’s demonstrated achievement of the unit’s learning outcomes (as reflected in their assessment), and not on grounds related to the academic's preference or circumstances.
5.3.2.
Students under similar circumstances are treated similarly (i.e., that there is no extraneous bias).
Page 11

5.4.
In designing the form Supplementary Assessment [Supplementary
Assignment (SA) or Supplementary Exam (SX)] is to take, Unit Coordinators must meet the expectation of Assessment Policy Clause 11.2
. Unit
Coordinators should ensure that the Supplementary Assessment demonstrates the same learning objectives as the assessment previously failed by the student. In general, if the type of Supplementary Assessment is to be the same as that previously failed by the student, the format should also be the same (i.e. if the supplementary assessment is to be an exam, it should have the same format as the original exam – multiple choice questions, short answers, essay answers; if it is to be an essay, it should be the same word length as the original assignment and should be on a comparable topic). Where the form of Supplementary Assessment is different to the failed assignment/s, the student must be provided with clear advice as to the nature of this difference and the Unit Coordinator’s requirements in the letter offering supplementary assessment. One instance when a different form of assessment may be required is where the failed component was a group assignment, in which case an equivalent though individual item of
Supplementary Assessment would be appropriate.
References:
There are no references.
Approval:
Approval Authority: President of Academic Council
Revision History:
Version Date Approved Effective Date (if later than ‘Date
Approved’)
Next Review
Date
Resolution No.
(if applicable)
Approved by
President of AC
Noted by AC
Noted by LTC
Approved by
President of AC
03/04/2014
18/09/2013
05/09/2013
05/09/2013
01/01/2014
01/01/2014
01/01/2014
01/07/2015
01/07/2015 AC/156/2013(iv)
LTC/31/2013
Page 12