Education and Assessment Systems

Overview of Teaching Methods

The College espouses a holistic method of education and provides an environment where academic learning, spiritual development and service occur together. Formal education methods include: lectures and interactive sessions, set and in-class readings, research, preparation of papers and oral presentations, video viewing, practical experiences, field education, group work, personal and group reflection, and study for examinations and tests. The educational methods used depend on the nature and level of courses. Informal learning takes place through dialogue and discussion, worship and prayer, and interaction during various opportunities to serve one another and the community.

Development and implementation of learning strategies for accredited courses

It is the responsibility of the Dean of Faculty, Course Coordinators, Faculty and the Learning Teaching and Research Committee to seek advice on the learning and assessment strategies for each accredited course offered within the College, and to implement such strategies.

It is the responsibility of the Unit Coordinators to oversee the review and updating of all units prior to delivery, with particular reference to delivery and assessment strategies. In some cases this responsibility is delegated to, or shared with, other Faculty, particularly where another Faculty member is the Coordinator of a particular course or set of units.

It is the responsibility of the Registrar to ensure that all units due for delivery are prepared ready for delivery according to College processes.

It is a responsibility of the Faculty to develop, deliver and review teaching and assessment strategies to ensure that they are relevant, contemporary and are an appropriate response to the students, the College and regulatory requirements.

Higher Education Assessment and AI.

Guiding Principles:

1. Assessment and learning experiences equip students to participate ethically and actively in a society pervaded with AI
2. Forming trustworthy judgements about student learning in a time of AI requires multiple, inclusive and contextualised approaches to assessment

Propositions

The following propositions outline the core areas of emphasis for the College’s assessment that address a world where students will engage with AI, including generative AI during their studies. Graduates will also be expected to interact with AI in many of the professional and civic roles they will assume.

1. Assessment should encourage students to critically analyse AI’s role in, and value for, work and study, aligned with disciplinary or professional values. 
2. Assessment operates across a program of study and assessment design considerations should span a whole program, rather than be applied solely at individual task or unit levels. 
3. Evidencing the process of learning over time and in context can support a better understanding of learners’ sense-making processes, what they ultimately know and can do. 
4. Assessment designs and judgements of student achievement should provide the opportunity for good quality collaborative work. 

The guiding principles and propositions outlined here are offered to help inform decision making and action into the future. However, they are not a prescription and are agnostic to the mode of delivery. The ideas in this section should also be viewed in an integrated manner. An approach to assessment would incorporate all the principles and propositions rather than rely heavily on one or two. The ideas should also be considered at the program level and not just on a unit-to-unit basis. This section is taken from TEQSA’s resources; Assessment Reform for the age of artificial intelligence, with the full statement found at this link: https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/resources/corporate-publications/assessment-reform-age-artificial-intelligence

Demands of a Unit

The College has the following demands for its units expressed as demand hours.

• AQF 5 - 4000 research words or equivalent.
• AQF 6 - 4500 research words or equivalent.
• AQF 7 - 5000 research words or equivalent.
• AQF 8 - 5000 to 6000 research words or equivalent.
• AQF 9 - 6000 research words or equivalent for a 6 credit point unit, 10,000 research words or equivalent for a 12 credit point unit.

Total demand hours for a standard unit (6 credit points) = 140 to 160 hours.

• 70 to 80 demand hours in completing assessment tasks.
• 70 to 80 hours completing non-assessable tasks (contact time, reading, research).

The full list of assessmetn types and the associated demand hours per assessment is found on the following link in Eastern's Curriculum Management Tool, UGBOOT: https://ugboot.eastern.edu.au/assessment_types

Validation of assessment

The validation of assessment will occur when a unit is prepared for delivery through the Unit Co-ordinator approving the delivery to be released.

Marking and Assessment

It shall be the responsibility of the Academic in Charge or Unit Co-ordinator who is in attendance at the first class of delivery of any unit of study to undertake the following tasks:-

• review the unit outline with students. This may involve more than one level of study;
• explain to students that assessment tasks are designed to test each student’s learning against the learning objectives of the unit;
• ensure students understand the learning objectives and assessment requirements of the unit;
• answer any questions students may have with respect to the learning objectives, assessment requirements and marking rubrics; and
• advise students how the lecturer/course coordinator may be contacted if additional advice or assistance is required.

Grading of Assessments

The marker shall be responsible to record a numerical mark for each assessment task for each unit of study where appropriate, to facilitate the calculation of an overall cumulative mark. The Marker shall be responsible to record each numerical grade assigned in the gradebook for the unit.

Grading will be based on criterion referenced assessment thus a rubric or other form of criteria must be made available to the students at the start of the unit delivery. The marker shall refer to the Colleges Subdivision of Grades Table to assist with the design of assessment criteria. The following list, shall for the time being, represent the subdivision of grades for the College.

The marker shall be responsible for recording either a pass or fail for a non-graded assessment task where appropriate, to facilitate the calculation of overall success in the unit.

The marker shall provide easily understood feedback enabling the student to enhance their learning, referencing the assignment criteria.

Subdivision of Grades

The following grading system gives an overall outline of the assessment criteria generally used for all units.

High Distinction: 85-100%

An extremely high level of expertise/competence in demonstrating understanding of the topic, comprehension of the concepts involved, and practical and/or presentation skills.

Distinction: 75-84%

A high level of expertise/competence in demonstrating understanding of the topic, comprehension of the concepts involved, and practical and/or presentation skills.

Credit: 65-74%

A commendable level of expertise/competence in demonstrating understanding of the topic, comprehension of the concepts involved, and practical and/or presentation skills.

Pass (P): 50-64%

An adequate level of expertise/competence in demonstrating understanding of the topic, comprehension of the concepts involved, and practical and/or presentation skills.

Fail: 0-49%

An inadequate level of expertise/competence in demonstrating understanding of the topic, comprehension of the concepts involved, and practical and/or presentation skills.

The Academic Standards and Risk Committee shall be responsible to consider the distribution of grades awarded, and shall consider the extent to which the grades assigned reflects the College’s expected distribution of grades.

Different groups of students and units of study requiring different learning outcomes shall be expected to result in different grade distributions.

Lecturers involved in marking and assessment tasks shall be responsible to ensure that rapid and helpful feedback is provided to the students.

CONTENT AND ARGUMENT

The content of any assessment task shall generally account for 80% of the total marks available, and markers shall be expected to consider the following criteria when marking any assessment task:-

• Is the work clearly focussed on the topic?
• Has the topic been addressed adequately?
• Have the basic facts been covered?
• Have the central issues been recognized and addressed?
• Is a sound biblical/theological perspective presented?
• Has a clear and logical argument/discussion been developed?
• Is there adequate discussion and analysis?
• Is there evidence of adequate background reading?
• Is there evidence of critical thinking?

PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL

The presentation of material in any assessment task shall generally account for 10% of the total marks available, and markers shall be expected to consider the following criteria when marking any assessment task:-

• Is the form, style and language clear and appropriate?
• Is the material well-organised?
• How effectively does the assignment communicate?

CONVENTIONS

The conventions prescribed by the College with respect to the preparation and presentation of any assessment task shall generally account for 10% of the total marks available, and markers shall be expected to consider the following criteria when marking any assessment task:-

• Is the format appropriate to the unit?
• How well is the work referenced?
• Is there adequate acknowledgement of sources?
• Is the bibliography/references list relevant and adequate?

LEVELS OF STUDY

Markers shall be responsible to be aware of the level at which students are studying (Higher Education, and within that Degree (AQF level 5, 6, 7) or Graduate (AQF level 8) or Masters (AQF level 9) award and to take account of the academic requirements expected at that level of study.