Assessment Processes at RMIT University: Feedback, Quality, and Appeals, Assignments of Physical Education and Motor Learning

Download Assessment Processes at RMIT University: Feedback, Quality, and Appeals and more Assignments Physical Education and Motor Learning in PDF only on Docsity!

Assessment

Processes

February 2019

Assessment Processes

RMIT University

Objective

These processes support and should be read in conjunction with the

Assessment and assessment flexibility policy.

Definitions

See the definitions section of the Assessment and assessment flexibility policy.

• Chapter
• Assessment – general processes ..................................................................................
• Design of assessment
• Assessment information in course guides
• Assessment rubrics
• Exceptions
• Vocational education assessment
• Group assessment work
  • — Overview of group assessment work
  • — Designing group work
  • — Managing group conflict
  • — Assessing group work
• Submission of assessment work..................................................................................................
  • — Submission of assessment for research component courses of 24 credit points or more......................
  • — Submission of theses and dissertations for courses of 48 credit points or more
  • — Submission of creative or professional practice projects of 24 credit points or more
• Supervision of research components in coursework programs (Higher Education)
• Ownership and retention of work submitted for assessment
• Feedback on assessment work..................................................................................................
• Responding to student disclosures of unlawful or harmful behaviour
• Chapter —
• Assessment – examinations processes
• Scope of exam rules
• Preparation for final exams
• Exam timetables
• Exam supervision
• Student responsibilities in relation to exams
• Incidents of misconduct during an exam
• Responsibilities of examiners
• Retention of marked exam scripts
• Exams for students who are elite athletes
• Examination of theses and dissertations for courses of 48 credit points or more
• Examination of creative or professional practice projects of 24 credit points or more
• Chapter —
• Assessment – quality processes .................................................................................
• Course assessment committees
• Program assessment boards
• Moderation of assessment
• Validation of assessment............................................................................................................
• Academic integrity and academic misconduct
• Chapter —
• Assessment – flexibility processes .............................................................................
• Extensions of time to submit assessment work
• Special consideration
• Deferred assessments
• Equitable learning plan
• Alternative assessment arrangements
• Assessment arrangements for elite athletes
• Chapter —
• Assessment – management of results.....................................................................
• Types of grade and their approval for use
• Grading systems
• Result publication dates
• Management of final student results
• Changes to published results
• Grade point average
• Weighted average mark..............................................................................................................
• Chapter —
• Assessment – academic progress processes ..........................................................
• Academic progress (coursework programs)
• Responsibilities of students and staff in relation to academic progress
• Definition of unsatisfactory performance
• Approved correspondence templates and pro formas
• Identification of students with unsatisfactory academic progress
• At risk first stage.........................................................................................................................
• At risk final stage
• Effects of exclusion
• Inherent requirements
• Supplementary assessments
• Maximum time to complete a coursework program
• Chapter —
• Assessment – review and appeal processes ...........................................................
• Review of assessment and appeals
• Grounds for review and appeal of a final course assessment result..........................................
• Stage one – school-level review of final course result
• Appeals against final course assessment results.......................................................................
• Appeals against exclusion..........................................................................................................
• Appeals against special consideration outcomes
• Review and appeals in relation to equitable assessment arrangements

Assessment – general processes

Design of assessment

1.1. Exams and assessment tasks must be materially different from any assessment task in the course in previous teaching periods across locations (over a two-year period) unless restricted by requirements for specific competencies for reasons of accreditation or safety. Please refer to College (and discipline) standards for specific requirements.

1.2. In any

— 12 credit point course, the total number of assessment tasks should not exceed 4, and in any — 24 credit point course, the total number of assessment tasks should not exceed 6 except where progressive assessment involves more regular submission of contributions to a single assessment piece (refer to section 1.8.2).

The total number of assessment tasks does not include those in micro-credentials.

1.3. The proportion of multiple choice answer assessments should not exceed 20% of the weighting of assessment tasks towards the final course grade.

1.4. For higher education programs, the weighting of an individual piece of assessment within a course will be no greater than 50% of the total marks except where the course is a research, studio-based, capstone or WIL component of the program.

1.5. Other than where prescribed by a nationally accredited training package or state accredited courses using competency-based assessment, a course can only include hurdle assessments where they are required by safety or professional accreditation, registration or licensing requirements and they must be clearly identified in the course guide.

1.6 The requirements specified in sections 1.1–1.3 are currently in transition and will be fully in effect by semester 2, 2019.

Assessment information in course guides

1.7. See the course guides section of the program and course processes for:

— assessment information that must be provided in course guides — conditions under which assessment in a course can be changed after the course offering has started.

Assessment rubrics

1.8. The instructions for each assessment must provide students with clear and detailed advice of the criteria by which their performance will be assessed.

1.8.1. RMIT is transitioning to a requirement that, where an assessment is graded and contributes 20% or more of the total course mark, a criterion-referenced assessment tool (rubric) or an alternative rubric required for external accreditation will state the standards of performance expected at each grade level: see the Using rubrics web page.

1.8.2 An assessment may comprise several separate tasks or parts, such as lab reports (where students are required to do a report per lab), each of which is worth a minimal mark. In such cases, where each part builds on the same material/concepts, the tasks or parts will be added together and considered as a single assessment for the purposes of determining the total number of assessment tasks in a course (see section 1.2) or the percentage an assessment contributes to the total course mark (see section 1.4).

These processes support and should be read in conjunction with the Assessment and assessment flexibility policy.

Chapter 1

Managing group conflict

1.18. Staff provide:

— clearly defined processes for managing group conflict at the start of the group work — guidance and active monitoring throughout the group work process so staff can intervene if a group becomes dysfunctional.

1.19. Students who experience problems with group functioning are responsible for informing the relevant staff as soon as possible so these issues can be addressed promptly and the group achieves its tasks.

Assessing group work

1.20. Staff provide students with:

— a clear statement of how their group work will be assessed, including marking criteria for and mark proportions allocated to the group process and the outcomes — instructions on how group members verify/authorise the submitted work — feedback on group work assessment process and outcomes.

Submission of assessment work

1.21. The course coordinator ensures at the start of each teaching period that:

1.21.1. the part B course guide states how students will submit assessment tasks, and

1.21.2. staff teaching the course inform students how they will submit assessment tasks.

1.22. Electronic submission (eSubmission) is the preferred method for students to submit assessment work. Physical submission should only be used for assessment work that cannot easily be submitted electronically, such as creative works or physical artefacts.

1.22.1. The electronic authorisation of assessment website describes how staff must set up eSubmission for students.

1.22.2. Students eSubmitting work must do so from their RMIT student account.

1.22.3. When eSubmitting work, students are directed to the Assessment declaration web page, and must ‘click through’ this page, thereby declaring their authorship of the work. They don’t need to include a cover sheet declaring their authorship.

1.23. Where students submit physical work for assessment, they must complete, sign and attach a cover sheet that includes a statement of their authorship of the work.

1.24. A generic cover sheet for physical submission of assessment work is available from the student assessment forms web page.

Submission of assessment for research component courses of 24 credit points or more

1.25. Sections 1.25–1.35 of these processes apply to research component courses of 24 credit points or more in bachelor honours or masters by coursework programs, including where a 24 credit point research component is broken into two 12 credit point courses.

1.26. The following two sections state two different sets of requirements:

— for submission and assessment of theses or dissertations for research component courses of 48 credit points or more (including where the thesis/dissertation is broken into two courses that total at least 48 credit points): see sections 1.28–1.31, and — for creative or professional practice research projects: see sections 1.32–1.35.

1.27. The requirements of sections 1.25–1.35 don’t apply to a research component course weighted at less than 24 credit points and which isn’t part of a larger research component weighted at 24 credit points.

Submission of theses and dissertations for courses of 48 credit points or more

1.28. When a student believes their dissertation, thesis or project is ready to be submitted, they should discuss with the supervisor whether the supervisor agrees that it is ready to be submitted.

1.28.1. The supervisor confirms the outcome of that discussion by email to the student within five working days.

1.28.2. The student may choose to submit without consulting the supervisor or even if the supervisor does not agree that the thesis/project is ready, but should note that unsupported submission risks a poorer mark.

Chapter 1

1.29. Other than in exceptional circumstances, students must submit the thesis or dissertation by the deadline stated in the information on assessment in the course.

1.30. Where, however, the student requires an extension to the deadline for submission of the thesis/dissertation:

1.30.1. because of unforeseen personal or health circumstances outside the student’s control, the student should apply for an extension or special consideration: see sections 4.1–4.10 below.

1.30.2. because of unexpected and exceptional difficulties other than unforeseen personal or health circumstances, such as difficulty accessing equipment or facilities, or delays in providing supervision, the program manager or course coordinator has discretion to grant an extension.

1.31. Approved late submission may mean that the student’s final results are not approved in time for the following round of higher degree by research scholarship applications.

Submission of creative or professional practice projects of 24 credit points or more

1.32. Schools should as far as possible schedule research component assessments to ensure that the results are approved in time for graduates to compete in the next round of scholarships to undertake a higher degree by research or to start employment in their profession after the end of the relevant teaching period.

1.32.1. In Melbourne programs this means that results should as far as possible be approved in October or at latest by late November.

1.33. Other than in exceptional circumstances, students must submit the assessment tasks in creative/ professional practice research component courses by the deadline stated in the information on assessment in the course.

1.34. Where, however, the student requires an extension to the deadline for submission of the research component:

1.34.1. because of unforeseen personal or health circumstances outside the student’s control, the student should apply for an extension or special consideration: see sections 4.1–4.10 below.

1.34.2. because of unexpected and exceptional difficulties other than unforeseen personal or health circumstances, such as difficulty accessing equipment or facilities, or delays in providing supervision, the program manager or course coordinator has discretion to grant an extension.

1.35. Approved late submission may mean that the student’s final results are not approved in time for the following round of higher degree by research scholarship applications.

Supervision of research components in coursework programs

(Higher Education)

1.36 These processes do not apply to courses in HDR programs, or research methods and research planning courses in coursework programs.

1.37 Research components in coursework programs may take the form of independent research or project work or practice-related learning or an equivalent piece of scholarship.

1.38 These processes are intended to ensure that students receive adequate supervision in what may be their first experience of undertaking a substantial research activity.

1.39 Refer to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the RMIT Human Research Ethics Policy Process for guidelines on research conduct.

1.40 Refer to the Assessment and assessment flexibility policy and to other relevant parts of these Assessment processes for information on research assessment.

1.41 For one year stand-alone bachelor honours programs that require a dissertation or thesis weighted at 48 credit points or more, the school or college may appoint an honours program committee.

1.42 The honours program committee is responsible for:

1.42.1 monitoring the allocation of supervisors and examiners to honours research components

1.42.2 serving as the course assessment committee for honours research components

1.42.3 serving as the program assessment board for the relevant honours programs.

1.43 The program will define in the course guide a normal word length for the dissertation/thesis appropriate to the discipline.

Chapter 1

Feedback on assessment work

1.52 Feedback effects the University’s commitment to transparent and supportive assessment; it: — informs students of how they can improve — demonstrates how performance has been measured against task requirements and course learning outcomes.

1.53. Assessors are expected to provide students with marks and feedback on in-course assessment work in time for students to improve their performance in related assessment tasks later in the course.

1.53.1. Assessors normally provide marks and feedback on in-course assessment tasks within 10 working days of the deadline for submission of the assessment work or, if a student is granted an extension, within 10 working days of the date when the student submitted the work.

1.53.2. Assessors normally provide students with marks for all in-course assessments before students sit any end-of-course exam.

Responding to student disclosures of unlawful or harmful behaviour

1.54 During engagement with assessment processes such as special consideration, equitable learning plan, academic progress and appeals, a student may choose to disclose details of concerning, threatening or inappropriate behaviour. Disclosures may include, but are not limited to, sexual harassment as described in the Sexual Harassment Policy, sexual assault, stalking, self-harm, bullying, harassment, unlawful discrimination and/or victimisation.

Safer Community provides support and advice to students and staff concerned about concerning, threatening or inappropriate behaviour. Staff should contact Safer Community for initial advice while maintaining student privacy. Such action will enable staff to respond to the student, providing timely referral to relevant services such as Safer Community, Student Counselling, Students Complaints, and Student Support. Mandatory reporting and other requirements, including Reportable Conduct Scheme apply to students under the age of 18.

Where there is an immediate risk of harm, seek urgent assistance via: — Emergency services 000 — RMIT Urgent Security — If unsure and needing advice, contact the RMIT Staff line for urgent student support on 9925 1111.

Chapter 1

Assessment – examinations processes

Scope of exam rules

2.1. The rules in these sections on examinations (exams) (sections 2.1–2.24) apply to all formal supervised exams, whether managed centrally by the Academic Registrar’s Group (ARG) or managed by schools, colleges or other units of the University.

2.1.1. These rules are written in terms of centrally managed exams of at least two hours duration, but should also be applied as far as possible to other, school-managed exams.

2.1.2. These rules apply to exams conducted in RMIT programs delivered with partner institutions, unless the partnership contract states other rules for exams.

Preparation for final exams

2.2 Examination development and coordination.

2.2.1 The course coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the final end of teaching period examination papers and marking scheme are developed and made available in accordance with prescribed requirements.

2.2.2 Development of the examination papers must be carried out in liaison with the course management team, normally no later than the expiry of 50% of the teaching period.

2.2.3 Where a course is delivered in more than one location (including campuses and partnerships outside Australia) consultation will occur with those responsible for delivery and assessment at each location to: — invite input into the development, moderation and proofing of the examination and marking scheme; and — coordinate the timetabling for preparation of the examination and marking scheme, and the delivery, marking and moderation of the examination.

2.3 Preparation of back-up examination papers.

2.3.1 Three examination papers must be available for each course, one of which is for use where a deferred exam sitting becomes required either via special consideration or where a breach in the integrity of the first assessment occurs, necessitating a further sitting.

2.3.2 The second examination paper must be prepared at the same time as the original examination paper. — Where there are two standard teaching periods in the calendar year and a third paper is not prepared at the same time as the original and second examination papers, the course coordinator must ensure that appropriate staff are available to prepare a timely third paper, where it is required.

2.3.3 In the case where any additional exam papers are not used, they may form the basis of the papers for the following teaching period offering of the course, where appropriate.

2.4 Examination timetabling arrangements.

2.4.1 The course coordinator will ensure that time frames are identified for the end-to-end processes for examination development, finalisation, approval, and inclusion in the University examination timetables.

2.4.2 This information will be communicated to Manager, Assessment Support and Exams, ARG (to enable timetabling and creation of the exam Online Header and Coversheet generator) and the appropriate School/College office (as directed by the respective School/College responsible for the course/s).

Chapter 2

— Marks for each question and each part are shown clearly — Marks add up to the correct total — Marks are consistent with any relevant instructions.

2.7.4 Where a course is delivered in more than one location (including campuses and partnerships outside Australia) the proof reader will ensure that those with delegated responsibility for delivery and assessment at each location have had the opportunity for input into the proofing process.

2.7.5 The proof reader must report any errors found in an exam paper to the course coordinator to arrange for the corrections to be actioned via the secure file transfer system.

2.7.6 When proof reading is complete, the exam paper, header sheet and cover sheet for each course are converted directly into a single PDF document to ensure a high image quality (papers must not be printed and scanned).

2.7.7 The proof reader will transfer the document/s via the secure file transfer system to the course coordinator, accompanied by a declaration that they have been proofed, which shall be retained by the school in an auditable manner. The format for file transfer should be PDF to retain formatting integrity. However, wherever reasonably possible an editable copy (MS Word, or other suitable format) should be accessible to facilitate an equitable assessment arrangement for students with a learning disability, where requested.

2.7.8 The course coordinator, reviewer, and proof reader may be the same person, provided they meet the eligibility criteria set out above.

2.8 Final check of exam paper and marking scheme by course coordinator.

2.8.1 Once the course coordinator receives the examination papers from the proof reader, a final check is completed.

2.8.2 The course coordinator will check to ensure: — Figures, diagrams, formulae are clearly legible — Professional-level presentation — Pages are numbered and in sequence — Marks add up to the correct total — The marking scheme is complete and consistent with the examination paper.

2.8.3 Where a course is delivered in more than one location (including campuses and partnerships outside Australia) the course coordinator will ensure that those with delegated responsibility for delivery and assessment at each location have had the opportunity to provide input into the final check and have confirmed the version control of the final paper.

2.8.4 The course coordinator is responsible for the final sign-off of exam papers and marking schemes. An auditable record of the satisfactory completion of proofing and final checking will be established and retained by the school.

2.8.5 Once this sign-off has been obtained the following processes are implemented: — Where the examination is timetabled by the ARG (Assessment Support and Exams), exam header sheets and cover sheets are created using the Online Header Sheet and Cover Sheet Generator, available via the Exams – staff web page. Where the examination timetable is not managed by the ARG (Melbourne), the delegated office responsible for timetabling will implement local procedures that meet the same standards of probity and integrity as those of ARG (Assessment Support and Exams).

2.9 Printing of examination paper.

2.9.1 Printing of examination papers and creation of exam header sheets and coversheets: Where the examination is timetabled by the ARG (Assessment Support and Exams), final examination papers with the exam header sheet and coversheet are to be forwarded ARG (Assessment Support and Exams) by the published deadline to the scheduled date of the examination via the secure file transfer system. Where the examination is not timetabled by the ARG (Melbourne), the delegated office responsible for coordinating the printing of the examination paper, header and coversheets will implement local procedures that meet the same standards of probity and integrity as those of the ARG (Assessment Support and Exams).

Chapter 2

— Papers to be transferred globally should be finalised by no later than the expiry of 70% of the teaching period. — Papers to be used local to the print source should be finalised no later than the expiry of 80% of the teaching period.

Exam timetables

2.10. The official examination period following each period of study is published in the annual academic calendar. The timing of school-run examinations is determined by the school.

2.10.1. Standard examination sessions normally commence at the following times: — Morning sessions: 9.15am — Afternoon sessions: 1.45pm 2.11 EAG set the exam timetable for each teaching period, before formal exams are held, in consultation with colleges and schools.

2.11.1 Exam timetables are published to students on the students’ web pages.

2.11.2 Once the exam timetable has been published, it will only be changed: — for significant, unavoidable reasons, — where the relevant Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching has endorsed the change in writing, and — the Academic Registrar (or nominee) has approved it.

2.11.3 As far as possible exams are scheduled to allow a one hour and 15 minutes break between exam sessions.

2.11.4 Students are responsible for checking when their exam will start in the published central exam timetable or with the school in the case of school-managed exams.

2.11.5 Students who require adjustments to their exam conditions because of a disability or long-term physical or mental health condition must register with Equitable Learning Services by the deadline stated in the relevant academic calendar.

2.11.6 The Academic Registrar and/or schools may arrange for deferred, supplementary and other exams to be held when necessary outside the published exam period or in addition to school-managed exams notified to students. Where such ad hoc exams are held, the area managing them will inform students of their exam date, time and venue at least five working days before the exam.

2.11.7 Students must bring their valid RMIT student card to the examination venue and clearly display it on their examination desk.

2.11.8 Students are permitted to take a hard copy bilingual dictionary into an examination unless otherwise stated on the examination cover sheet. The dictionary must not contain any notations or be otherwise tampered with in any way. The dictionary must be presented to the examination invigilator for inspection at the venue prior to the examination.

Electronic dictionaries are not permitted unless otherwise stated on the exam coversheet.

2.11.9 Where reading time applies, students will be given 15 minutes reading time at the start of the examination session.

2.11.10 Students are not permitted to write in the examination script books, mark in any way any of the examination materials, read any text other than the examination paper or do any calculations during reading time.

2.11.11 Where a student has two or more exams scheduled at the same time it is their responsibility to: — check their student email account regularly before the commencement of the examination period to ascertain arrangements for clash exams, and — report to the Clash Examination Venue to sit the examinations as advised.

2.11.12 Students should arrive at the examination venue no less than 20 minutes before the published commencement time of the examination.

Chapter 2

Exams for students who are elite athletes

2.24. Students who are classified as elite athletes by RMIT Sports, and whose athletic commitments prevent them from attending an exam at the exam venue, can apply to RMIT Sports for a remote supervision arrangement.

2.24.1. RMIT Sports will transmit the request to ARG, Assessment Support and Exams.

2.24.2. Remote supervised exams take place on the same date and at the same time as the exam for other students in the course offering.

Examination of theses and dissertations for courses

of 48 credit points or more

2.25. Dissertations and theses are examined as follows.

2.25.1 The principal supervisor proposes two examiners. To avoid a conflict of interest, neither of the examiners can have supervised the student’s dissertation or thesis work.

2.25.2 The college deputy pro vice-chancellor, learning and teaching can approve an exception to the rule in the previous sub-clause where the school demonstrates exceptional circumstances.

2.25.3 The examiners are approved by the program manager or research component course coordinator and notified to the program assessment board.

2.25.4 The program manager provides the examiners with the instructions to students for undertaking the dissertation or thesis and the criteria for assessment. The program manager also provides a link to the Supervision of research components in coursework programs process (see sections 1.36–1.48).

2.25.5 The examiners provide written reports including a short statement of the reasons for the mark awarded, and a statement to be provided to the student. They’re expected to return these reports and statements within two weeks of receiving the dissertation or thesis for examination.

2.25.6 Students are provided with the examiners’ statements, but not the marks awarded by the examiners.

2.25.7 Where the two examiners’ marks differ by more than 15% of the maximum possible total mark, the dean/head of school or nominee will appoint a third examiner, who may be from within the University or external to it, but who must not have supervised the dissertation or thesis. They must be provided with the same materials for the examination as were the two original examiners, but not with the original examiners’ reports.

2.25.8 The examiners’ reports and marks are referred to the course assessment committee for determination of a final grade.

2.26. Assessment of theses or dissertations should as far as possible be scheduled to ensure that the results are approved in time for graduates to compete in the next round of scholarships to undertake a higher degree by research or to start employment in their profession after the end of the relevant teaching period.

2.26.1. In Melbourne programs this means that results should as far as possible be approved in October or at latest by late November.

2.26.2. Students should note that this time-frame may need to be extended where a third examiner is required under section 2.25.7 above, or for other reasons.

2.27. Students are entitled to appeal against the result of an honours research component course by the appeal process set out in the review and appeals sections below: see sections 7.1–7.16.

Examination of creative or professional practice projects

of 24 credit points or more

2.28. Major assessment tasks (weighted at 50% or more of the mark in an individual course) are assessed by more than one assessor. At least one of the assessors must have the level of qualification required for assessment in the program: see program and course processes for details.

2.29. Other assessment tasks (weighted at less than 50% of the weighting of a single course) are assessed by more than one assessor, except where there are practical reasons why they can only be assessed by one staff member. At least one of the assessors of any assessment task must have the level of qualification required to assess in the program: see program and course processes for details.

Chapter 2

Assessment – quality processes

Course assessment committees

3.1. Course assessment committees (CACs) review and approve results for courses. This involves:

3.1.1. ensuring results are entered by the results entry deadline in the relevant academic calendar, or as instructed by the Assessment Support and Exams team within ARG Integrity; or recording the reasons for any missing or interim results.

3.1.2. monitoring grade distribution and course outcome statistics.

3.1.3. monitoring reports of changes to grades after results publication.

3.1.4. overseeing moderation to ensure equivalence and comparability of assessment across multiple locations or delivery channels and over time.

3.1.5. granting supplementary assessments under the circumstances stated in sections 6.24–6.25 below.

3.1.6. approving final grades for students in the course (other than final grades that are the result of administrative processes).

3.1.7. allocating course-based prizes, awards and commendations.

3.2. CACs are not required to be held for vocational education courses with ungraded assessment, VCE or VCAL courses, or research courses in HDR programs.

3.3. CACs must be held for:

— vocational education courses with graded assessment and — higher education coursework courses including coursework courses in HDR programs and associate degrees.

3.3.1. Schools and colleges have flexibility to organise their CACs to ensure efficiency and a rigorous approach: a CAC meeting may deal with multiple courses across multiple programs as needed: in some schools it may be possible to hold a single CAC for all coursework courses.

3.3.2. In schools with more than one discipline it may be best to hold a CAC for the courses offered in each discipline.

3.4. The CAC meets at the end of each teaching period, after marking has taken place and when course results are being decided.

3.5. The members of a CAC are:

— the deputy dean/head of school, learning and teaching/associate dean, discipline, or nominee (chair); where programs are led across a whole college rather than a school, the program director can chair — staff responsible for course management/coordination — staff responsible for marking and grading assessment.

3.5.1. In the case of vocational education courses with graded assessment the program team may act as the committee, with the program manager/leader as chair.

3.6. A quorum of a meeting of the CAC is the chair, at least one member of staff responsible for management/ coordination of the course, and at least one marker/grader from each location where the course is delivered.

Chapter 3

3.13.1. Professional staff perform the following administrative tasks on behalf of the PAB on (in competency-based vocational education programs) on behalf of the program team: — review the grades achieved and academic progress of each student in the program in each teaching period — check for students who are eligible to graduate and identify award level classifications for these — identify students who are at risk of unsatisfactory academic performance (first stage) and nominate an academic advisor to develop an academic performance improvement plan with the student (or without the student if they choose not to participate) — identify students with established unsatisfactory academic progress (final stage) and ask the student to show cause why they should not be excluded from the program — arrange supplementary assessments for students in the circumstances set out in section 3.20 below.

See sections 6.1–6.21 below for more detail about the academic progress process.

3.13.2. Schools and colleges have discretion to hold PABs to perform this administrative work if the program team prefers to do this themselves, but are not required to do so.

3.14. A PAB must be held for higher education coursework programs.

3.14.1. Schools and colleges have flexibility to organise their PABs to ensure efficiency: a PAB meeting may deal with multiple programs as needed: in some schools it may be possible to hold a single PAB for all coursework programs.

3.14.2. In vocational education programs, where PABs don’t have to be held, the program team can meet to consider students’ academic progress ‘show cause’ submissions: see sections 6.14–6.17 below.

3.15. PABs meet after CAC and before course results have been published in each teaching period.

3.15.1. A PAB may need to meet again to hear show cause submissions from students who have been classified as at risk (final stage).

3.16. The members of a PAB are:

— the deputy dean/head of school, learning and teaching or deputy dean/head of school for the relevant discipline or associate dean, discipline or discipline leader (chair); where programs are led across a whole college rather than a school, the program director can chair — the program manager or nominee for each program considered by the PAB — year level or core course coordinators — representatives of other schools with which a double degree program is shared or that service-teach core courses in the program.

3.16.1. Where a PAB is held for a vocational education program, the program team may constitute the PAB membership, and the program manager may chair.

3.17. A quorum of a meeting of the PAB is the chair and two members from any other membership category.

3.18. See the PAB minute template webpage. The school or college ensures that the PAB keeps minutes that record: — the date, time and venue of the meeting, or the fact that it was held online and the time during which it was held — programs (including teaching period and delivery location) that were considered by the meeting — attendance and a confirmation that the meeting is quorate — award levels of graduands — supplementary assessments granted — allocation of any program-level prizes, awards and commendations — discussion of minutes of course assessment committees for the teaching period and possible improvements to assessment in the program — the outcomes of student show cause submissions (whether the PAB allowed the student to continue in the program with an at risk classification, or decided to recommend to the dean/head of school that the student be excluded from the program).

3.19. The minutes of the PAB are provided to reviewers of the program(s) for which the PAB is held.

Chapter 3

3.20. The chair of a program assessment board (PAB) may ask the school that manages a course to grant a supplementary assessment opportunity to a student where: — the student is enrolled in a higher education program with a total credit points requirement of 96 credit points or more, and — the student has passed all other courses required for the program but has narrowly failed (with a mark of 45–49%) a course in what would have been their final teaching period to complete their program, or — the student is enrolled in the second-to-last semester or trimester before they are expected to complete their program and has narrowly failed (with a mark of 45–49%) a core course, and this course isn’t available in the final teaching period in which the student is expected to complete their program.

3.21. See sections 6.24–6.32 below for the processes for holding supplementary assessments and recording results for them.

Moderation of assessment

3.22. See the course assessment committees (CACs) section of these processes (sections 3.1–3.12 above) for the responsibilities of the CAC, including moderation.

3.23. Moderation of assessment can result in adjustment of student marks to overcome differences in the difficulty of assessments and/or severity of marking.

3.23.1. Wherever possible such adjustments must be made before the marks for the assessment are communicated to students.

3.23.2. The reasons for each adjustment are minuted by the CAC that approved it.

3.24. The course coordinator is responsible for consistency and transparency in moderation of assessment in the course.

3.25. Moderation of marking of an assessment involves the following steps:

3.25.1. The course coordinator specifies the marking scheme for the assessment in writing.

3.25.2. All markers agree on a marking process that promotes consistency, such as using one marker for a question across the whole course, double-marking where a marker is new to the course, and regular communication between markers during the marking work.

3.25.3. Where there’s only one marker, a moderator is assigned.

3.25.4. The course assessment committee (see sections 3.1–3.12 above) then: — reviews the distribution of marks across the course — makes any adjustments to marks and — identifies improvements for future assessments and marking.

3.25.5. Where moderation identifies significant variations between different markers, the course coordinator takes action to increase consistency, such as clarifying the marking scheme, cross-marking, consensus techniques or review of marking by others.

3.25.6. The course coordinator provides a summary report on moderation in the course for the course assessment committee, setting out: — the moderation processes used — any issues that arose in moderation — reasons for adjustments made to marks, and — any other matter relevant to the CAC’s approval of final results in the course.

3.25.7. At least once a year each school will collect samples of marked examinations and major assessment tasks, in each grade-band of results, from each location where each course is offered (including online offerings) for review by staff responsible for course and assessment design in the school.

3.25.8. The school uses this review to evaluate the program assessment strategy.

3.25.9. Records of this review are retained and provided to program reviews as evidence of quality assurance and continuous improvement of assessment in the program.

Chapter 3