Relationship to the Higher Education Standards: 

Standard 1.4.3 Methods of assessment are consistent with the learning outcomes being assessed, are capable of confirming that all specified learning outcomes are achieved and that grades awarded reflect the level of student attainment.

Standard 5.3.4. Review and improvement activities include regular external referencing of the success of student cohorts against comparable courses of study, including:

b. the assessment methods and grading of students’ achievement of learning outcomes for selected units of study within courses of study.

Introduction

To ensure that the assessment process for each unit delivery is fair, valid and reliable, each unit delivery will undergo assessment moderation applied at three stages: assessment design and development; marking and grading; and review and student evaluation. To ensure that the assessment methods and grading of students’ achievement of learning outcomes are reviewed and improved a fourth stage of external peer review will occur.

Stage 1: Assessment Design and Development

Assessment moderation in the design and development stage is managed through UGBOOT which is the College’s Curriculum Management Software. 
The College determines assessment tasks that are fair, valid and reliable during the accreditation and re-accreditation processes.
When a unit is delivered, the Academic in Charge (or Unit Coordinator) sets the delivery schedule and assessment tasks in UGBOOT and provides marking rubrics for the unit of study. Assessment tasks marked as critical tasks in the accreditation documents cannot be changed by the Academic in Charge without approval from the Dean of Studies.
The following processes are crucial in developing assessment tasks that are fair, valid and reliable:

• Alignment of assessment tasks to unit learning outcomes which are aligned to the course learning outcomes and graduate attributes.
• Marking criteria and grading rubrics that align the specific requirements of the assessment task to the College’s subdivision of grades.
• The Academic in charge must also consider the appropriate type of assessments tasks, number of assessment tasks, weighting of assessments tasks, and complexity of the assessment tasks for the AQF level of the unit – Refer to the Assessment and Grading Policy for guidance.

Initially, these are externally reviewed during the accreditation process by subject matter experts. Over time, units will be updated with improved assessments when requested by the Unit Coordinator, informed by students’ progress and students' evaluation.
The Unit Guide is then validated by the Unit Coordinator who ensures that:

• Suitable topics are planned which will cover the contents intended for the Unit and appropriate and sufficient for the assessment tasks;
• The learning outcomes intended for the unit can be met by the topics and resources which will be delivered;
• The assessment tasks are aligned to the unit learning outcomes  in a manner which will adequately demonstrate the skills and knowledge achieved by the learner;
• The weighted value of the tasks is appropriate having regard to the complexity of the task and its academic demand;
• The schedule and weight of each assessment task within the unit provides for early recognition of student engagement with the unit, individual student’s effort and assurance of learning at the end of the unit.

Stage 2: Assessment Marking and Grading

Marking and Grading moderation to ensure consistency of marks will occur when:

• More than one person marks the same assessment task in a unit delivery
• Where the unit is delivered in more than one mode or at different locations in the same semester
• When a person is marking the first time
• When a “fail” mark is given for an assessment task weighted over 40%
• When the number of “high distinction” marks significantly exceeds the expected distribution given the class size.

When a unit is delivered in multiple modes or locations within a semester or when more than one marker is assigned to an assessment task, one of the following moderation processes must be adopted:

• Second marking – A sample of assessed items will be marked a second time by another academic staff member. The items chosen for second marking should be representative and be a number equal to the square root of the total number of assessed items or five items, whichever is the larger. If there are sufficient inconsistencies within the sample than all items may be required to be re-marked.
• Blind double marking – The moderator is not informed of the previous marker’s grade. If the marks given by the two markers are within 10% of each other, the final mark is the average of the two. If the marks differ by more than 10% a third marker examines the work. The markers may then discuss the marks to arrive at a consensus result of the median of the three marks to be taken as the final mark.
• Cross marking – Where the unit is delivered in multiple locations or modes the marking is shared across all locations/modes so that one person marks all of the same assessment task for all locations/modes.

The College may offer supplementary assessments. Supplementary assessments are formally approved by the Dean of Studies for a student to undertake an additional assessment task in order to provide an opportunity for the student to pass the unit. Refer to the Special Arrangements Policy.

Stage 3: Assessment Review and Student Evaluation

Assessment review and student evaluation is part of the ongoing improvement process which can provide input to adjust the assessment strategy for the unit. Depending on when this feedback is received, adjustments may not be made to the delivery immediately after the one which received feedback.
The following information will be used internally in the review and student evaluation of assessment:

• Grade Distribution reports (with comparative data from previous deliveries)
• Unit Evaluation and Improvement feedback from students

This information will be forwarded to the Academic in charge and the Unit Co-ordinator (UC) and where relevant the Dean of School (DOS). A response will be provided by both the Academic in charge and the unit coordinator and any improvement items approved by the Dean of School, will be entered into the Quality Improvement section for the unit of study in UGBOOT.
Assessment improvements are to be reported through the Annual Course Review process to the Learning, Teaching and Research Committee.

Stage 4: External Peer Review of Assessments

External Peer Review of marks will not normally change a student’s marks or grades as it is a post-assessment moderation.
Within each course a sample of units will undergo external review and assessment benchmarking within the cycle of accreditation. These sample units will be prioritised as:

1. units recognised as capstones
2. units with more than 10 enrolments
3. units shared across courses
4. units taught in parallel
5. units to ensure various academics’ assessment practice’s undergo external review or calibration

This may mean not every unit will undergo external peer review in the cycle of accreditation.
A sample of assessment tasks will be blind marked by an academic (subject matter expert) external to the College. Care will also be taken that a range of grades is included in the sample. Results of the exercise will be returned to the College and a report written for the Academic Standards and Risk Committee to take action upon. Such actions may include, but are not limited to:

1. Requesting internal second marking for the academic involved in any subsequent delivery of the unit.
2. Commending the academic for consistency
3. Requesting changes to assessment tasks or marking rubric
4. Requesting changes to the assessment strategy for a unit

Where the College has been deemed to be marking more than 10% below the external peer reviewer’s marks, the matter may be raised at the request of the Academic Standards and Risk Committee.
The list of units moderated and actions taken will be reported to the Academic Board via the Annual Course Review process for monitoring purposes.

External referencing of assessment strategies should be conducted for each unit at least once in the accreditation cycle.