Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
Policy Name
Assessment Policy
Policy Group
Education Policies > Teaching and Learning > Assessment,
Recognition and Awards
Policy Reference Number
ED.02.03.01 – 16
Purpose
To ensure that assessment of students undertaking education and training delivered by CIT is consistent
with high quality teaching and learning practices, national policy and the specific requirements of
Training Packages or accredited programs.
Scope
This policy covers the assessment of subjects (including units of competency) in all CIT programs.
Definitions
Assessment
The process of collecting evidence and making decisions on whether
competency or learning outcomes have been demonstrated and successfully
achieved.
Assessment Plan
Documented information provided to the student prior to the start of the
assessment process that states the requirements, description, type, number
and timing of assessment activities and events, alignment with assessment
criteria, grading mode and contribution of each assessment outcome to the
student’s final result for the subject.
Assessment
strategy
This describes an overall approach to assessment will be constructed for the
program/subject or competency.
Assessment tool
A tool that contains both the instrument and the instructions for gathering and
interpreting evidence aligned with the assessment criteria for a competency,
cluster of competencies or a graded subject. This includes details of assessment
provided to students and used by assessors in making assessment decisions
(e.g. items and marking guides). These also include tools used for skills
recognition.
Banner Security
Classes
Banner Security Classes define the access Banner Users receive based on the
tasks and functions that need to be undertaken by persons in given positions.
These function-based classes, in some cases, are designed to be mutually
exclusive, so that no single staff member can undertake all the steps necessary
to set up a student id, register and enter results through to processing an
official transcript or testamur. Refer to Banner Security Procedures for more
information.
Colleges
Reference to Colleges is taken to include all Colleges, the CIT Yurauna Centre,
CIT Solutions and any teaching delivered in any Division.
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 1 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
Criterion
referenced
assessment
The achievement of an individual student is assessed against clearly stated
performance criteria.
CRN (Course
Reference
Number) End
Date
When a CRN is created in Banner, it is given a start and end date. For
Traditional CRNs, the end date is the same for all students registered within
that CRN. For Open Learning CRNs, the end date is linked to the individual
student’s registration period.
E-assessment
E-assessment is the use of information technology for any assessment-related
activity. It includes the design of assessment tools, the delivery of assessments
and the reporting, storing and transferring of assessment data.
Formative
Assessment
This is the informal process of providing feedback to students about their
progress towards competencies and learning outcomes. Formative assessment
enables both teachers and students to make timely adjustments during
teaching and learning to better enable students to achieve competence as
measured by formal, summative assessment tasks.
Grading Rubric
This is a matrix which specifies learning outcomes as a continuum on the
horizontal axis (typically grades from Pass to High Distinction), with the criteria
for evaluating learning outcomes on the vertical axis. A grading rubric provides
a clear description at each of the levels of graded performance expected for
each of the criteria. It describes the quality of the performance.
Moderation
Moderation is where teachers and peers review assessment judgements and
standards to ensure consistency in outcomes. The process is a professional
discussion that ensures the same standards are applied to all assessment
results within the same Unit(s) of Competency or subject.
Modified Grade
A Modified Grade is a grade issued to a student who is unable to achieve all the
learning outcomes in a subject or unit of competency as a result of their
disability. It indicates that the student has achieved all possible learning
outcomes to the limit of their ability. This grade is a ‘Fail’ grade.
The definition of a Modified Grade will be printed on the back of Official CIT
result notices and academic transcripts as “Modified Grade (for students with a
disability who are unable to achieve all outcomes)”.
Reasonable
Adjustment of
Assessment
Skills Recognition
This refers to any adjustment to the standard form of assessment or conditions
that is put in place to accommodate a student’s disability. Adjustments are
made that are deemed sensible, fair and equitable. These provide opportunities
for students with a disability to demonstrate competency on “an equal footing”
with their classmates.
An assessment process that assesses an individual’s prior learning, including
formal, non-formal and informal learning to determine the extent to which the
individual has achieved the required learning outcomes or competency
outcomes for subject(s) in a program. This is a service that values and
acknowledges the learning outcomes and competencies already achieved by
individuals and is linked to further skill attainment and career development. In
the Australian Qualifications Framework this is known as Recognition of Prior
Learning (RPL), but at CIT this will be known as Skills Recognition.
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 2 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
The two types of Skills Recognition are:
Credit Transfer/ National Recognition
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL by assessment)
Standards for NVR
Registered
Training
Organisations
(SNR)
The Standards aim to ensure nationally consistent, high-quality VET training and
assessment services. They detail the requirements for initial and continuing
registration, and in so doing set out the requirements training organisations
must meet in order to deliver and assess nationally recognised training and
issue nationally recognised qualifications. The Standards are available online at:
http://www.asqa.gov.au/
Summative
Assessment
This refers to the summation of students’ learning and final confirmation of
whether competency or learning outcomes have been achieved. Summative
assessment tasks at CIT provide formal results.
Training Product
AQF qualification, skill set, unit of competency, accredited short course and
module
Validation
A process whereby assessment processes, tools and evidence are reviewed,
compared and evaluated, and is undertaken both internally (within CIT) and
externally (with other stakeholders and partners). Internal validation ensures
assessment (including Skills Recognition) processes, tools and evidence meet
Training Package requirements, and is conducted in accordance with the
principles of assessment and rules of evidence. External validation ensures
industry contribution to the design and improvement of assessment tools
(including those for Skills Recognition) on a regular basis to ensure they meet
workplace, and where relevant, regulatory requirements.
Principles
1.
CIT assessment framework
All assessment undertaken within CIT will be:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
2.
in accordance with the principles of assessment which are: valid, reliable, flexible and fair
in accordance with the rules of evidence: valid, authentic, sufficient and current
criterion referenced
formative, summative, or Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)
adaptable to using e-assessment strategies, as appropriate
carried out in accordance with the assessment requirements set out in the Training Package
or accredited curriculum
documented in the Assessment Plan within the CIT Subject Guide, and
consistent with processes and procedures specified in the CIT Assessment Manual
“Assessment in CIT”, A Guide for CIT Staff
Assessment across programs
Programs will meet the following assessment requirements:
i.
VET sector program requirements will be consistent with Standards for NVR Registered
Training Organisations stipulated in Training Packages or accreditation documentation, and
CIT Educational Policies
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 3 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
ii.
iii.
iv.
3.
higher education programs accredited by TEQSA will be consistent with the requirements
of the program accreditation documentation and CIT Educational Policies
higher education programs accredited by other higher education providers will be
consistent with the requirements detailed in the program accreditation documentation and
provider requirements
ACT Year 12 courses will be consistent with the requirements of the ACT Board of Senior
Secondary Studies (BSSS)
Teaching qualifications
Teachers conducting student assessment will have the qualifications as set out in the
Teacher/Assessor Qualifications, Experience & Increments Policy.
4.
Graded and ungraded assessment
CIT recognises the use of both graded and ungraded assessment:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
5.
the grading mode of the subject/UOC is determined during program development
Skills Recognition will not be graded
grading rubrics will be used for all graded assessment tasks, and assessment criteria will be
provided for all ungraded assessment tasks
formative assessment in both graded and ungraded programs may be carried out to assist
students build skills and knowledge and receive feedback on their progress
results are to be determined in accordance with CIT approved result codes
Policy on graded assessment
A subject may be graded if:
i.
ii.
6.
it is in a qualification at Diploma level or above, and evidence for one or more of the
following considerations has been demonstrated:
a. when industry uses evidence of assessment performance in employment selection
processes and requests CIT to provide such evidence,
b. grading is important for a major piece or capstone assessment task,
c. where above ‘competent,’ a wide variation of student performance may occur,
d. the result is required by a Higher Education articulation agreement that specifies a
graded subject.
a submission to CIT Academic Board for grading of subject(s) not covered in i) has been
lodged and approved.
Student assessment information
Clear and comprehensive information on the assessment requirements will be provided to students
prior to the assessment event as listed in the Assessment Plan found within the CIT Subject Guide
including:
i.
ii.
iii.
the assessment description and grading mode,
assessment criteria, and for graded subjects, a grading rubric where applicable, showing all
summative assessment tasks as compulsory and to be successfully completed before
achieving a Pass grade or above,
details of all assessment tasks,
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 4 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
iv.
7.
how the different assessment tasks contribute towards the final judgment about
competency/learning outcomes achievement.
Assessment results and feedback to students
i.
ii.
iii.
8.
Students will receive assessment results and feedback within two weeks, (or otherwise as
approved by the Head of Department in writing) of the student submitting or completing
the assessment item. Once assessment results are finalised for each student, result
outcomes are to be recorded in the roll as outlined in the Rolls Policy (Record of Attendance
and Assessment) and entered on Banner
A final result, or an EG (extension granted) or AP (Academic Progress - off-the-job
assessment satisfactorily completed) midterm result, is to be entered on Banner within two
weeks of the end of the CRN date. If not, Banner will enter a final result of WW.
EG (extension granted) grades are to be updated to a final result by the teacher within six
weeks of the CRN end date, and AP (Academic Progress - off-the-job assessment
satisfactorily completed) grades updated to a final result by the teacher within twelve
months of the CRN end date. If not, Banner will enter a final result of WA.
Assessment considerations to meet student needs
Students undertaking assessment:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
9.
may apply for an extension to the assessment completion date and/or negotiate special
consideration based on negotiation between teacher and student. Applications for extensions
for up to two weeks initially, but up to a total of four weeks after the CRN end date, should
occur no less than 48 hours prior to a due date. If the College Director deems a student is
entitled to a longer extension period, the student may apply for RPL or be re-enrolled. The
Director may waive the fee for RPL or enrolment if a genuine need for extension is deemed.
will be given an opportunity to be reassessed, unless otherwise approved by the College
Director, when they are unable to achieve the required standard at the first attempt. For a
reassessment, where the subject is graded, students will be eligible for no higher grade than a
Pass. Students (except for international students) may be charged for the opportunity to be reassessed if approved by the College Director. Colleges may develop more detailed Collegespecific reassessment policies and procedures to cater for individual areas of delivery.
have the right to appeal an assessment result in line with the CIT Academic Appeals Policy.
who have identified as having a disability, may have the need and right to reasonable
adjustment of assessment.
Quality assurance - validation and moderation
Validation will occur at a minimum of once every five years, with at least 50% of this completed
within the first three years. This could happen more often for more high risk units or units where
contractual arrangements stipulate more ongoing review.
Validation of CIT’s assessment practices and judgements will be undertaken by one or more
persons, who are not directly involved in the particular instance of delivery or assessment of the
training product being validated, and who collectively have:
a. Vocational competencies and current industry skills relevant to the assessment being
validated
b. Current knowledge and skills in vocational teaching and learning; and
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 5 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
c. The training and assessment qualification or assessor skill set
Industry experts may be involved in validation to ensure there is the combination of expertise set
out in (a) to (c) above.
Colleges will implement quality assurance processes including:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
identification of assessment coordinators, to coordinate the development of appropriate
information for learners, assessment strategies, assessor guidelines and assessment tools for
each subject or unit of competence.
an internal validation process to ensure compliance with Training Package requirements, and
assure the quality of College assessment procedures, assessment tools and assessment
decisions. This process must be documented and this includes skills recognition tools and
decisions.
an external validation process to ensure industry contribution to the design and improvement of
assessment tools on a regular basis. This process must be documented and this includes skills
recognition tools. Staff employed by CIT are not considered to be independent of CIT and
therefore cannot be called on to provide industry’s perspective for official external validation.
a process for conducting moderation for subjects or Units(s) of competency taught by more than
one teacher. This is to ensure assessment judgements and standards are applied the same way
to all assessment results so that consistency in outcomes can be assured.
Benchmarking of the academic standards in higher education courses of study, against similar
accredited courses offered by other higher education providers.
Program Review and Improvement for all subjects to: oversee the internal peer and external
industry validation process; review student results, performance, completion level, roll books,
and subject evaluations; and identify improvements to delivery and assessment.
an annual report of the outcomes from the Program Review and Improvement to the CIT
Academic Board using the approved template.
10. Administrative procedures
Colleges will implement the following administrative procedures:
i.
ii.
retention of records pertaining to student assessment will comply with the Records
Management Policy and the Territory Records ACT Disposal Schedule including:
a. Roll Books/copy of Banner or eLearn – 7 years
b. Program Review and Improvement records including assessment tools – ten (10) years
after the assessment is undertaken
c. Student assessment items – refer to Principle 11
updating of assessment results entered on Banner, will be managed by CIT Banner in line with
the approved Banner security classes
11. Retention of student assessment will abide by the following principles:
i.
Keeping a clean copy of the Subject Guide, all assessment tools and marking rubrics. These are to
be kept in eLR and linked to moderation and validation reports for that unit or alternatively in
the CRN Roll Book
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 6 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
ii.
In all cases, a copy of the teacher’s completed marking guide, criteria and observation checklist
is to be retained for all students. These are to be kept in eLR and linked to moderation and
validation reports for that unit or alternatively in the CRN Roll Book
iii.
CIT eLearn is to be used where possible by students to submit assessment items and by teachers
to record feedback to students by using the appropriate functions of the assignment tool.
iv.
Where it is not possible to use CIT eLearn to capture and store completed assessment items and
feedback to students, a sample of three student summative assessment items which have been
assessed as competent per CRN and the corresponding teacher feedback records is to be
retained. If there are fewer than three students in a CRN, assessment items and teacher
feedback for all students are to be retained. These are to be kept in eLR and linked to
moderation and validation reports for that unit or alternatively in the CRN Roll Book.
v.
Where a student’s assessment item cannot be retained (e.g. practical demonstrations, oral
presentations, student portfolios, fashion garments, etc), ensure that a record of the teacher’s
feedback to the student is retained as per point ii) above.
vi.
Evidence of regular internal peer and external industry validation of assessment tools along with
a sample of at least three completed student assessment items per qualification is to be retained
in eLR and linked to Program Review and Improvement documentation for that unit. Validation
evidence must indicate that the assessment (including Skills Recognition) meets the
requirements of the relevant training package or accredited course, is conducted in accordance
with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence, and meets workplace and, where
relevant, regulatory requirements.
vii.
Completed student assessment items and teacher feedback records as outlined above are to be
retained for at least six months in line with the ASQA General Direction: Retention Requirements
for Completed Student Assessment Items, except in the case of apprentices and trainees where
the Territory Records Act 2002 requires they be kept for five years.
Delegations
Delegation Manual
Delegation Number
Delegation
Delegate
Educational
10.01
Director
Head of Department
Assessment Co-ordinator
Educational
10.02
Educational
10.03
Educational
11.03
Approve assessment
plans, items or events
and information to
learners for a subject
owned by their program
area
Approve the number of
reassessments/re-sits for
a subject in their College
Approve validation of
subject assessment
strategies with industry
Approve College subject
results including
Advanced standing based
on Recognition where a
student is also a College
staff member
Educational
11.04
Approve the update of a
Director
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Director
Director
Head of Department
Director
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 7 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
Educational
subject result based on a
successful appeal
referred to them
Authorise the use of a
modified grade result for
a student on the advice
of the Disability Coordinator
11.07
Director
Head of Department
Executive Endorsement
Version Number
Date Endorsed by BOM or BOM delegate
Review Process
(Initial Policy, Major Review or Minor Amendment)
001
15 September 2000
Initial Policy
002
13 September 2001
Minor Amendment
003
26 September 2002
Major Review
004
11 November 2003
Minor Amendment
005
18 June 2004
Minor Amendment
006
14 April 2005
Major Review
007
16 June 2008
Major Review
008
8 October 2009
Minor Amendment
009
February 2011
Major Review
010
September 2012
Minor Amendment
011
2 November 2012
Major Review
012
14 November 2013
Minor Amendment
013
16 January 2014
Minor Amendment
014
13 March 2014
Major Review
015
28 January 2015
Minor Amendment
016
30 march 2015
Minor Amendment
Review Date
This Policy is due for review by March 2018 or when changes to work practices or the Authority Source
noted below render the policy out of date.
Minor amendments do not alter the review date.
Documentation
Authority Source
Canberra Institute of Technology Act 1987
Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 8 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011
Related Documents
1. CIT Subject Guide
2. CIT Educational Policies
 Academic Appeals Policy
 Use of Modified Grade (MG) within CIT Policy
 Academic Misconduct by CIT Students Policy
 Teacher/Assessor Qualifications, Experience and Increment Policy
 Complaints Policy – Student and Community
 Program Review and Improvement Policy
 Rolls (Record of Attendance and Assessment) Policy
 Skills Recognition and Articulation Policy
3. CIT Records Management Policy
4. Territory Records (Records Disposal Schedule – Tertiary Student Management
Record)
Supporting Guides
Assessment in CIT A Guide for CIT Staff
Program Review and Improvement
Accountabilities
Policy Owner (Lead Coordinator:
General Manager, CIT Student and Academic Services
Responsible for major review and
any amendments and recommends
sign off by the Chief Executive)
Contact Officer (Responsible for
Director, CIT Education Services
input and advice to the policy)
Mandatory Consultation
I approve this policy.
__________________________________
Acting Chief Executive
__________________________________
Date
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 9 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
PROCEDURES
Assessment co-ordinator appointed by Head of Department
Assessment requirements (including graded subjects where appropriate) identified from
Training Package or Accredited Course.
Assessment strategies (including Skills Recognition and re-assessments) agreed by teachers
delivering the subject and confirmed by assessment co-ordinator
Assessment tools developed in line with agreed timeframes and scrutinised by assessment
co-ordinator.
Assessment tools are validated internally by peers (against Training Package/Accredited Course
requirements) and externally by Industry.
Students provided with a Subject Guide containing information on assessment within 2 weeks of
commencement of delivery
Students are assessed in line with standards outlined in SNR, Training Package and/ or
accredited program Moderation of student work takes place when required (see Assessment
Policy)
Appeal against assessment decisions processed according to the Appeals Policy
Program Review and Improvement undertaken and continuous improvement items actioned.
Results entered on Banner
Directors provide an annual
report on the outcomes of
the Program Review and
Improvement to the
Academic Board
Students access results on Banner Web
Assessment records documented and filed
for required period
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 10 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
ATTACHMENT A – CIT Result Codes
Result codes and Grading Modes
All subjects have a Grading Mode on Banner:
1
Not assessable
2
Final Examination - Ungraded
5
Ungraded
7
Graded to High Distinction
8
External Examination
A
Final Examination Graded to High Distinction
For subjects which are non-assessable (Grading Mode 1), the following result codes may be used:
WW Withdrawal without attendance/start * (see below)
X
Non-assessable subject/module
For subjects with an ungraded grading mode, the following results codes may be used:
UP
Pass achieved, ungraded
F
Module/competency outcomes not achieved *(see below)
MG
Modified Grade **(see below)
WW Withdrawal without attendance *(see below)
WA
Withdrawal with attendance *(see below)
For subjects with a graded grading mode, the following results codes may be used:
HD
High Distinction
D
Distinction
CR
Credit
P
Pass/All outcomes achieved
F
Subject/ competency outcomes not achieved *(see below)
MG
Modified Grade ** (see below)
WW Withdrawal without attendance/start * (see below)
WA
Withdrawal with attendance/start * (see below)
Extension Granted and Academic Progress Grades – midterm grade only – not a final grade.
These grades may be entered in the Banner midterm grade column and then updated by the teacher,
and will appear on the student’s record of results .
EG
Extension Granted – To be entered into the Banner midterm grade column when a student is
unable to complete assessment requirements within two weeks of the CRN end date. Teachers
will then have six weeks from the CRN end date to enter a final grade.
AP
Academic Progress – Off-the-job assessment satisfactorily completed, but work placement
assessment still to be undertaken. To be entered into the Banner midterm grade column within
two weeks of the CRN end date when a student has satisfactorily completed the off-the-job
assessment requirements, but still needs to meet the on-the-job assessment requirements to
successfully complete the unit of competency. Teachers will have twelve months from the CRN
end date to enter a final result in Banner.
*F/WW/WA
Where a student does not successfully complete a subject, the final result is to be determined according
to the following rules:
WW – If the student did not attend and/or did not engage in learning activity(s) in class, online
or flexible learning, and did not attempt assessment.
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 11 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015
Printed copies of this policy are not controlled.
Always check the SIS to ensure this information is accurate.
WA – If the student engaged at least once in a learning activity(s) in either a class, online or
flexible learning session, but did not attempt all the assessment requirements for the subject.
F – If the student did attempt all the assessment requirements for a subject but did not achieve
the subject/ competency outcomes. Where a student did not achieve the competency
outcomes and did not resubmit or was not re-assessed when given the opportunity to do so, this
is still a fail grade.
**Modified Grade is a grade issued to a learner who is unable to achieve all the learning outcomes in a
subject or unit of competency as a result of their disability. It indicates that the student has achieved all
possible learning outcomes to the limit of their ability. This grade is a ‘Fail’ grade. A Modified Grade can
only be awarded if the Disability Co-ordinator is involved and the process in the Use of a Modified Grade
(MG) Grade in CIT Policy is followed.
Recognition Codes:
NR
Nationally Recognised Competencies – Unit of Competency code is identical.
CT
Credit Transfer – Formal study from RTO no older than 5 years, Unit of Competency code is not
identical, or when using many UOCs/ subjects for a UOC/subject.
NA
Not approved – Formal study cannot be mapped and no other evidence can be provided.
RG
Recognition Granted – Successful RPL assessment of an individual’s skills and knowledge (can be
in combination with other formal study evidence ie. Australian University, Overseas
Qualification).
NG
Recognition not granted – Unsuccessful RPL assessment (not yet competent).
FS
Recognition pending for Formal Study (Final grade will be CT or NR or NA)
WL
Recognition pending for Work/Life Experience (Final grade will be RG or NG)
Assessment Policy
Contact officer: Director, CIT Education Services
Date created: 15 September 2000
Page 12 of 12
Date updated: 30 March 2015