Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines ... · Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines Page 2 of 32 Revised December, 2014 Table of Contents Background

Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines Page 1 of 32 Revised December, 2014

Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines

Revised December 2014


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 Assessment roles and responsibilities 5

5 Design of assessment tasks 5 5.1 Alignment with subject learning outcomes 6 5.2 Criteria and standards 6 5.3 Early tasks in first year undergraduate subjects 7 5.4 Pass requirements in subjects 7 5.5 Additional requirements and conditions within graded subjects 7 5.6 Compulsory attendance in on-campus subjects 7 5.7 Exemption from requirements based on previous assessment in the same subject 8 5.8 Equivalence in assessment across cohorts 8 5.9 Examinations 9 5.10 Subject outline requirements 9

6 Managing the assessment process during the session 9 6.1 Feedback to students 9 6.2 Remarking of assessment tasks 9 6.3 Resubmission of assessment tasks 9 6.4 Maintaining subject assessment records 10

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 11 8.1 Awarding of AA and AE grades 12 8.2 Communication of availability of Additional Assessment 12 8.3 Changes of grade 12 8.4 Notification of grades 12 8.5 Timeline for finalising grades at end-of-sessions 12 8.6 Applying TA grades to an entire cohort 13 8.7 Applying TA grades to individual students 13 8.8 Late grade changes 13 8.9 Reviews of grade 13 8.10 Grades in Workplace Learning Subjects in Teacher Education Courses 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


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 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:

• 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.

2 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 multi-cohort 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.

https://www.csu.edu.au/about/policy


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)


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



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.


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

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/assessment-and-moderation-at-csu/home


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 multi-campus, 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.


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-at-csu/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 non-graded 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




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:

• 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.

7.2 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


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:

• 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.

8 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:


• 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)

8.1 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


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:

• 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.

8.8 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.


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


• 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.


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.


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

End of session

• Final moderation of grades to create defensible grade allocations

• Discussion of improvements for next delivery • Complete A & M Record (Part 4)

Post-subject

• Follow up recommendations from A & M Record and Assessment Committee for next delivery.

• 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.

• Assessment Committee check A & M Record (Part 1)

• Follow up with Course Director & Subject Convenor/Coordinator if necessary


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.


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


SAC Secretary Create A&M Record for each subject and place on shared drive


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.


QAC Complete MSI QA and A&M Record parts 1 and 2


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


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 4-5 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.


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.


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


SAC Secretary Create spreadsheet from moderation forms and identify subjects for scrutiny based on criteria


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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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, web-based 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.


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:

http://student.csu.edu.au/administration/forms#assessment

https://www.csu.edu.au/about/policy


• 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.


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

Site and PEU implement “At Risk” process at midpoint of

placement.DSP developed and monitored

Student meets standards of placement and final report

is satisfactory (i.e., no Causing Concern grades).

Student fails to meet standards of placement; final report grades student as Causing Concern on at least one

St d d

Subject Coordinator submits SY grade.

PERC* Meeting – considers evidence and determines recommendation to HOS or PEAC

PERC decision: TA

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)

PERC decision: US

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.

Subject Coordinator submits COG form to HOS.

Student re-enrols in subject at next offering. If Exclusion is being

considered student will not be able to start placement until Exclusion

process is completed.

Student submits application for Review of Grade as per

ROG process.

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.

PEAC** Meeting – determines whether to exclude student from course or not; and if applicable, the period of

PEAC Decision

PEAC decides not to exclude.

Chair of PEAC advises student of decision of PEAC

Chair of PEAC advises student that enrolment in subject will be maintained and student is now

eligible for placement.

PEAC Decision

PEAC decides to exclude

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.

Student re-enrols in subject (OR enrolment is maintained) at next offering and is eligible for

placement

Note: All documentation to be filed in TRIM by the PEU

Student agrees to Exclusion process.

Executive Dean’s considers case in accordance with Section 6 – Appeals against

Exclusion (Academic Progress Policy).

Executive Dean – Decision

Exclusion is confirmed

Executive Dean determines exclusion will proceed and advises DSA of outcome. DSA notifies student as per

Section 5 of Academic Progress Policy.

(Template 6)

DSA notifies student of Exclusion and process for appeal.

Student appeals Exclusion in writing to the Executive Dean

Executive Dean – Decision

Exclusion is rescinded

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.

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

Glossary: Alternate HOS Head of the School that is not responsible for the

student’s course delivery. COG Change of Grade DPEU Director, Professional Experience Unit DSA Division of Student Administration DSP Developmental Support Plan for student at risk HOS Head of School PEAC Professional Experience Assessment Committee PELO Professional Experience Liaison Officer PEPC Professional Experience & Partnerships Coordinator PERC Professional Experience Results Committee PEU Professional Experience Unit, Faculty of Education SAC School Assessment Committee SY Satisfactory Grade TA Grade yet to be finalised. ULO University Liaison Officer US Unsatisfactory Grade

Alternate HOS then convenes a PEAC meeting within 10 working days.

* PERC is made up of the Subject

Coordinator, PEU Director, ULO/PELO (if available) & PEPC

**PEAC membership = Alternate HOS and

student’s Course Director

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.

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


Appendix E. Assessment and Moderation Record

Faculty of Education

FacEd-Assess&Mod Record-Dec14 Page 1 of 6

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



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

If Yes, Part 1, (the Assessment

Design Moderation Record) does not

need to be completed

(proceed to Part 2)

No

This subject has had no changes to assessment items or learning objectives since the previous Assessment and Moderation Record.

Yes

If Yes, Part 1, (the Assessment

Design Moderation Record) does not

need to be completed

(proceed to Part 2)

No

List recommendations from the previous report that have been, or are going to be, followed up, if any:

Criteria Subject

Coordinator or Nominal

Quality Assurer

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 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

Signed (Quality Assurer): Name Signature Date



Part 2 Subject Outline Moderation Record

Criteria Subject Coordinator

Quality assurer

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 Met Not

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 (Quality Assurer): Name Signature Date



Part 3 During Subject Moderation Record This subject is a workplace learning subject graded Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory.

Yes If Yes, Part 3, (During

Subject Moderation) does

not need to be completed No

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 (Quality Assurance Consultant): Name Signature Date



Part 4 Grade Distribution Report and Recommendations

Campus/ Mode HD DI CR PS FL FW AW GP TA AA AE SX IP Total

TOTAL

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




Part 5 Assessment Committee Recommendations School and Faculty Assessment Committee comments or recommendations:

Signed (Assessment Committee Member): Name Signature Date

Documents

Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines ... · Faculty of Education Assessment and Moderation Guidelines Page 2 of 32 Revised December, 2014 Table of Contents Background