Validation and Moderation
The NQC says Validation is…
•
• ...a quality review process...
• that involves checking that the
assessment tool produced adheres to
the Principles of Assessment and meets
the Rules of Evidence.
And that Moderation is…
• ...the process of bringing assessment
judgements and standards into alignment.
• Moderation is a process that ensures the same standards are applied
to all assessment results within the same Unit(s) of Competency
• Moderation is an active process in the sense that adjustments to
assessor judgements are made to overcome differences in the
difficulty of the tool and/or the severity of judgements
What’s the difference?
Validation
Moderation
Key Purpose:
• Is the assessment process valid,
reliable, fair and flexible?
• Is the evidence gathered from the
assessment valid, sufficient, authentic
and current?
Key Purpose:
• Ensure comparability and
consistency of assessment
decisions across assessors and
delivery locations.
Method:
• Review the assessment tools
and discuss the process.
Method:
• Review a sample of completed
assessments.
How are they different
The AQTF Element 1.5 now NVR
15.5 says
“Assessment including RPL:
a) meets the requirements of the relevant Training
Package or accredited course
b) is conducted in accordance with the principles
of assessment and the rules of evidence
c) meets workplace and, where relevant,
regulatory requirements
d) is systematically validated”
How do we all benefit?
•
➤ increases confidence in RTO standards which allows mutual
recognition to work more successfully
•
➤ can help maintain standards when assessment occurs in new
locations and contexts
•
➤ can help maintain standards for assessment occurring through
partnerships
•
➤ helps ensure that candidates receive fair treatment during the
assessment process and value the credentials issued by the RTO
•
➤ is valuable when an RTO is preparing for audit
Maximising confidence in assessment decision-making (Booth, et
al., 2002) NCVER
You can validate anytime
• Validation before assessment takes place concentrates
on the:
➤ design of the assessment activities
➤ evidence guides and assessment tools
➤ benchmarks against which learner performance is to be
assessed
• Validation after assessment concentrates on:
➤ the assessment task and the assessment process
➤ learner performance
➤ the assessment decision that has been made
➤ reporting and record keeping
➤ feedback from candidates
Maximising confidence in assessment decision-making (Booth, et
al., 2002) NCVER
Validation Process
Participants notified of
meeting details by Chairperson
Documents collated and
distributed:
oUnit of competency
oAssessment tool(s)
oLAPs and CIPs
(if available)
oAssessment
mapping
Completed
improvements are
entered in the Department
Continuous Improvement
Register by Chairperson
Participants review
Assessment Tool(s)
PreValidation
Meeting
Validation
Meeting
Finalising
Post Validation
Meeting
Recommendations for
improvement noted and
assigned to staff
Validation
template
completed and
signed by all
participants
Recommendations for
improvements are
followed up and
implemented by the
assigned staff member
Participants notified by Chairperson
Documents collated and distributed:
oUnit of competency
oAssessment tool(s)
oLAPs and CIPs
(if available)
oAssessment
mapping
Pre-Validation
Meeting
Validation
Meeting
Participants review Assessment
Tool(s)
Recommendations for
improvement noted
and assigned to staff
Validation template
completed and signed
by all participants
Post - Validation
Meeting
Recommendations
for improvements
are followed up and
implemented by the
assigned staff
member
Completed
improvements
are entered in the
Department Continuous
Improvement Register by
Chairperson *
Finalising
* Could be a Register or minutes of
Department meetings, etc
Now to Validate...
• In groups:
 Designate a Chairperson
 Examine the validation documents
supplied by participants




Assessment tools/instruments?
The unit(s) of competency?
Learning and Assessment Plans including mapping?
Other supporting documents?
 Determine the protocols to be used in the meeting
 Who talks and when, etc
 Confidentiality
 Professional discussion and respect for others work
Populate the Validation Report…
Unit code and title
Name of qualification and code
Cluster Name (if relevant)
Description of Learner cohort
Date of validation meeting and participants
Assessment Methods used to assess this unit
Tools to be validated
Timing of validation
Special points (if any)
Now examine the Assessment
Tool & Instruments…
Discuss each question in the report
Note any recommendations for
improvements?
Finalising
Make recommendations for improvement as
you go
Sign off the report
One person is responsible for
ensuring the recommended
actions take place
And last BUT not least…
• Store the document where it is safe and
accessible:
- Scanned to S: drive folder
- Staff Spaces site folder
- Send to Trim
- Validation and Moderation
file in shared
cabinet
And don't forget…
• Continuous Improvement:
- Report the changes at a Department meeting so they are
minuted
- List the changes in your Department’s Continuous Improvement
Register
- Document the dates of proposed and completed Validation and
Moderation in your Course Implementation Plans (CIPs) and
Learning and Assessment Plans (LAPs)
What next?
• Develop a Validation plan:
- Validate each unit or cluster of units over a 3 year period for each
qualification
- Share the Chairperson role (organising and conducting the
meetings)
-
Invite sessional staff to validation meetings when possible
- Investigate industry representatives who might be interested in
validation activities
- Ask your students for feedback on assessment tasks
How often to Moderate?
• When:
• Set up a timetable that covers likely industry
feedback and assessor moderation. This can
happen before and after assessment.
• All assessment strategies and tools should be
considered over a three year period with particular
attention given to new competencies or those with
a high attrition rate.
Chisholm QMS 402, Attachment 1
Who should Moderate?
•
•
•
•
•
Participants at Moderation meetings can come from:
within Chisholm (different campuses and/or departments)
other RTOs
secondary schools
professional networks
• All teaching staff, including sessional teachers are encouraged to
participate.
•
• Moderation meetings are best held before finalisation of results.
•
Moderation can occur:
•
Across (all) assessors of the same
competency
•
Internally – same competencies, same course, across campuses,
contract and sessional, across Departments
•
Before assessment – agreement regarding fairness and consistency
of tools
•
After assessment – verification of assessment outcomes
•
Selection of assessments and their outcomes against the same
competency
Moderation Process
PreModeration
Meeting
Assessment
Moderation
Moderation
Meeting
PostModeration
Meeting
Moderation Process
PreModeration
Meeting
Assessment
Moderation
•Meeting date/time/venue and protocol
determined and advised to all
participants by Chair person/Organiser
•Participants contribute assessment
sample to be moderated
Moderation Process
Moderation
Meeting
Assessment
Moderation
•Participants review assessment decisions:
If judgements are consistent, no further action required
If judgements differ, recommend actions for
improvements
Recommendations assigned to staff for completion
•Moderation template completed and signed by all participants
Moderation Process
•Improvements are implemented by
assigned staff and Chairperson notified
Assessment
Moderation
•Completed improvements are entered in
the Department Continuous Improvement
Register by Chairperson *
PostModeration
Meeting
* Could be a Register or minutes of
Department meetings, etc
Now to Moderate...
• In groups:
 Designate a Chairperson
 Collate the supplied samples of marked
assessment task(s)
Determine the protocols to be used in the
meeting
Populate the Validation Report…
 Unit code and title
 Name of qualification and code
 Cluster Name (if relevant)
 AQF Level
 Description of Assessment Task(s)
 Date of moderation meeting
 Participants details
 List the sample assessments and
• the original result
Examine the sample(s)
 Would you give the same result?
 Any comments?
Finalising
• Complete the Moderation Findings table
• Actions to be taken
• Who will take the actions?
• When will the actions be taken?
• All participants sign off the report.
• Completed actions reported to
• Chairperson
CLICK TO EDIT TITLE
Click to enter text only