Assessment Procedure
1. PREAMBLE
These procedures outline the processes for developing, revising, and marking assessments (including examinations) for units within courses offered by the Institute, except in the case of VET courses, research theses, and placements (placement information can be found in the placement handbook).
These procedures also outline extension and special consideration processes specific to unit-level assessments.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW ASSESSMENT OR EXAMINATION
2.1. Development Process
2.1.1. Unit Coordinators are responsible for the development of a new assessment or examination. This includes identifying the need for new assessments or examinations.
2.1.2. Unit Coordinators must consult with the Course Coordinator and recent accreditation documentation to ensure that a new assessment or examination is feasible.
2.1.3. All new assessments and examinations must be developed in consultation with the
Course Coordinator.
2.1.4. All new assessments and examinations must assess skills and knowledge at the appropriate AQF level.
2.2. Quantity and Type
2.2.1. Each unit must have at least two pieces of assessed work.
2.2.2. No piece of assessed work may be worth more than 60% without approval from the Dean.
2.2.3. Units can have a mix of assessments and/or examinations. A unit may have all assessments other than examinations, all examinations, or a combination of both; however, the following points must be adhered to:
a) Across a course, the type of assessments should be varied to ensure students are assessed against different communication styles.
b) Across a course, assessments should have an integrative nature such that assessment types reflect the development of knowledge, skills, and competencies acquired thus far. This may mean that assessments early in the semester, year, or course may be simpler (e.g., smaller word count, smaller scope) than those due later.
2.3. Integrity
2.3.1. Assessments must be designed to limit opportunities for breaches of academic integrity.
2.3.2. Unit Coordinators must ensure that assessments within any one unit are sufficiently different to not create opportunities for self-plagiarism or other breaches of academic integrity.
2.3.3. Course Coordinators must ensure that assessments across units are sufficiently different to not create opportunities for self-plagiarism or other breaches of academic integrity.
2.4. Assessment Information
2.4.1. Unit coordinators are responsible for ensuring that assessment information across a unit is clear, accurate, and consistent. This includes, but is not limited to, information in the course handbook, unit outline, assessment outline, assessment submission portals, teaching materials, or information provided in canvas announcements.
2.4.2. Assessment rubrics must accurately reflect the nature of the assessment, be criterion referenced, and clearly assess the student learning outcomes associated with that piece of assessment.
2.4.3. Where a discrepancy in information provided arises, unit coordinators should provide timely clarification of information to all students via a canvas announcement and must rectify the discrepancy where possible.
2.5. Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Graduate Attributes
2.5.1. All assessments (including examinations) must align with at least one student learning outcome of the unit.
2.5.2. Across a unit, the assessments together should assess all of that unit’s student learning outcomes.
2.5.3. With the exception of multiple-choice assessments, all assessments (including written and oral examinations) must have a criterion referenced rubric.
2.5.4. The unit coordinator is responsible for ensuring that rubrics clearly assess the relevant student learning outcomes.
2.6. Learning Resources
2.6.1. Unit coordinators are responsible for ensuring their unit contains the relevant learning resources and teaching activities to allow students to attain the student learning outcomes relevant to a piece of assessment prior to that assessment’s deadline
2.7. Approval and Oversight
2.7.1. In addition to the Unit Coordinator and Course Coordinator approving the new assessment, they must also seek out an additional reviewer with appropriate knowledge, training, or experience to review the new assessment or examination if the Course Coordinator does not have this expertise. This can include someone internal or external to Cairnmillar.
2.7.2. Once reviewed in alignment with 2.5.1, the new assessment or examination must be formally approved by the Associate Dean (Teaching & Learning) via the Change of Unit Form on the Teaching Hub before the unit outline deadline.
2.7.3. No new assessments may be introduced to a unit during any teaching semester that it is currently being delivered. However, new assessments can be developed in preparation for the next teaching semester.
2.7.4. The Associate Dean (T&L) must identify further oversight procedures required for the assessment. These include:
a) Accrediting body review (e.g., APAC, PACFA, or ACA)
b) Internal review (e.g., Course Standards Committee or Academic Board)
c) Course Advisory Committee review
d) Student body review.
3. REVISION OF EXISTING ASSESSMENT OR EXAMINATION
3.1. Minor Revision of Assessment or Examination
3.1.1. A minor revision reflects a change in the assessment or examination that does not result in a change to the way the assessment or examination assesses the attainment of student learning outcomes.
3.1.2. Examples of minor revisions include, but are not limited to, changing the topic of an assessment or examination to ensure it is sufficiently different from the previous year but still assesses the same student learning outcomes, refining the wording of the rubric to align with the student learning outcomes more clearly without adding or removing rubric criteria, or changing the due date of an assessment.
3.1.3. Course coordinators are responsible for determining whether a revision to an assessment is minor. The Associate Dean (T&L) should be consulted when the determination is not obvious.
3.1.4. Course coordinators are responsible for ensuring all minor revisions of assessments or examinations are acceptable.
3.1.5. Minor revisions to assessments should be noted on the unit outline under ‘changes to the unit from the previous offering’ section.
3.2. Major Revision of Assessment or Examination
3.2.1. A major revision reflects a substantial change to an assessment or examination that directly impacts the way the assessment or examination assesses the attainment of student learning outcomes.
3.2.2. Examples of major revisions include, but are not limited to, the removal of an assessment, changing the communication style of the assessment (e.g., from an essay to an oral presentation changing the topic of an assessment or examination in such a way that it no longer assesses the same student learning outcomes.
3.2.3. All major revisions should be completed in consultation with Course Coordinators, reviewed by a content expert, and formally approved by the Associate Dean (T&L) via the Change of Unit Form (akin to 2.5).
3.2.4. The Associate Dean (T&L) must identify further oversight procedures required for the assessment. These include:
a) Accrediting body review (e.g., APAC, PACFA, or ACA)
b) Internal review (e.g., Course Standards Committee or Academic Board)
c) Course Advisory Committee review
d) Student body review.
4. MARKING AND FEEDBACK FOR ASSESSMENTS AND EXAMINATIONS
4.1. Marking
4.1.1. Unit Coordinators are responsible for ensuring feedback for each assessment meets the requirements set out in 5.1.
4.1.2. All written and oral assessments must be criterion referenced and, therefore, must be accompanied by an appropriate marking rubric.
4.1.3. Marking rubrics may be holistic or analytic.
4.1.4. Marking rubrics must facilitate student and staff understanding of the assessment requirements such that:
a) The anchors (e.g., “underdeveloped”, “developing”, “proficient”, “above expectations”, “exemplary”) and descriptors of each anchor for each criterion have operational indicators of performance (i.e., the descriptor makes a clear distinction between anchors) that are clear and transparent enough to facilitate the judgement of academic merit and acquisition of student learning outcomes.
b) Rubric criteria clearly map onto the student learning outcomes being assessed.
c) Rubric criteria are appropriately weighted.
d) There is a clear synergy between the rubric criteria, assessment description, weekly content, and other information provided to students about the assessment.
e) Rubrics are routinely benchmarked internally or externally via the double marking of a small number of assessments.
4.1.5. Marking for all assessments and examinations must be returned within 3 weeks of the deadline or student submission date, whichever is later.
4.1.6. In exception to 5.1.5, the grade for the final assessment or examination piece of a unit will not be returned until after the semester results have been ratified and released to students, even if this is more than 3 weeks from the assessment deadline.
4.1.7. Unit Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that all markers of an assessment are.
4.1.8. appropriately trained in how to mark the assessment.
4.1.9. Where there are multiple markers of an assessment, Unit Coordinators are responsible for ensuring markers employ equivalent marking standards by engaging in marking moderation activities outlined in the marking moderation guidelines. This includes moderation activities:
a) before marking (e.g., marking training),
b) during marking (e.g., reviewing the first, middle, and last marked assessment of each marker), and
c) after marking (e.g., reviewing marking distributions of each marker and ensuring any differences, such as one marker awarding all grades above 90% and another awarding all grades below 60%, are legitimate differences)
4.2. Double and Triple Marking
4.2.1. Double and triple marking refers to situations in which a second or third naïve marker (i.e., someone that has never seen the assessment piece prior to marking) marks a single assessment or examination.
4.2.2. Where double marking is required, the student will receive the average of the two marker grades. If there is 10% or greater difference in marks between the two markers, the assessment must be marked by a third marker.
4.2.3. Where triple marking is required, the student will receive the median of the three marks.
4.2.4. Assessments and examinations must be double marked if:
a) The assessment receives an initial grade below 50%
b) The assessment receives an initial grade that will impact progress
c) The student has followed all appropriate steps in querying a grade and submits an appropriate remark request form that is approved
4.2.5. An assessment that is double or tripled marked cannot be subject to a request for remarking, as such, students who have grounds to believe their double or triple marked grade is incorrect must follow the Institute’s Student Grievance Policy and Procedure.
4.3. Feedback
4.3.1. Unit Coordinators are responsible for ensuring feedback for each assessment, and
examinations where relevant, meets the requirements set out in 5.2.
4.3.2. All assessments require written feedback that both justifies the awarded grade and identifies areas for improvement.
4.3.3. Formal examinations may not be accompanied by individual feedback, but students may query their grades in alignment with 5.3.
4.3.4. Feedback for all assessments and examinations must be returned within 3 weeks of the deadline or student submission date, whichever is later.
4.3.5. In exception to 5.3.3, feedback for the final assessment or examination piece of a unit will not be returned until after the semester results have been ratified and released to students, even if this is more than 3 weeks from the assessment deadline.
4.4. Querying a Grade on an Assessment or Examination
4.4.1. Students are responsible for adhering to the procedure of querying a grade as outlined
on the relevant my.CMI.
4.4.2. Due to the protected nature of examinations, the below additional measures are required to minimise the chances of examinations being copied or recorded:
a) Students must attend an in-person meeting to view their marked exam.
b) An online or phone meeting may take place to discuss the examination generally, but the examination paper cannot be shown due to technological risks of the examination being copied or recorded.
4.4.3. Students and staff that are engaged in a query of grade must uphold the Institute values of respect, integrity, honesty, collaboration, and professionalism.
5. EXTENSIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
5.1. Examination
5.1.1. All adjustments to examinations are a form of special consideration.
5.1.2. Where a student is unable to sit a scheduled examination (as supported by an approved special consideration) a deferred examination will be scheduled.
5.1.3. Deferred examinations must be sufficiently different from the scheduled examination to limit opportunities to breach academic integrity.
5.1.4. Deferred examinations, at the discretion of the Unit Coordinator and Course Coordinator, may take any form of assessment (e.g., essay, multiple choice, short answer, viva voce) that can still be assessed under exam conditions (including a form
different from the original examination).
5.1.5. Where a deferred examination is required for one or more students, the unit will set a single date for all students to complete the deferred examination together. Students will be given at least 2 weeks’ notice of the deferred exam date.
5.1.6. With approval from the Dean in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, a student may be offered a different date for the deferred examination.
5.2. Extensions
5.2.1. Students are responsible for ensuring that they adhere to all requirements for extensions.
5.2.2. All extension requests must be submitted via the online form on my.CMI.
5.2.3. Extensions of up to 14 calendar days can be requested for an assessment (extensions beyond 14 calendar days must be requested via a special consideration).
5.2.4. In alignment with 5.1.1, extensions cannot be granted for examinations.
5.2.5. Extensions typically cannot be granted for the below:
a) Scheduled assessments (e.g., in-class assessments).
b) Group projects (due to the impact of the extension on all members of the group).
c) Intensive units.
5.2.6. Unit and Course Coordinators can consider exceptions in 5.2.5 on a case-by-case basis.
5.2.7. Extension requests must be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the deadline of the assessment. Extension requests received within 48 hours of the deadline will be rejected and a special consideration will be requested.
5.2.8. Extension requests may only be made for disruptions due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the student’s control that impact the student’s ability to complete the assessment task on time.
5.2.9. Examples of reasons that are NOT grounds for extension include, but are not limited to:
a) Foreseeable events (e.g., holidays, social events, work, course study load).
b) Errors on the student’s behalf (e.g., misreading, or misunderstanding assessment deadlines or requirements).
c) Technology-related problems (e.g., printer problems, slow internet, computer no longer working, accidental deletion or loss of assessment).
d) Minor health difficulties that do not impede the ability to complete/submit (e.g., normal and expected elevations in stress or anxiety due to the completion of a weighted assessment, minor illness such as headaches or common cold).
5.2.10. Extension requests must be supported by appropriate high-quality and externally verifiable evidence. This means evidence must be on official documentation (e.g., with a letter head) and cannot be provided by someone who is a conflict of interest (e.g., evidence cannot be a doctor’s certificate from a family member).
5.2.11. Unit Coordinators, or a teaching delegate approved by the Unit Coordinator, is responsible for reviewing and responding to extension requests within 3 business days.
5.2.12. Unit Coordinators, or a teaching delegate approved by the Unit Coordinator, will determine the appropriate extension length. This may be shorter, longer, or the exact duration requested by the student.
5.2.13. Where an extension request is declined, the student must be notified in writing, given reasons for the declined request, and informed of their option to appeal the decision under Student Grievance Policy and Procedure.
5.3. Special Considerations
5.3.1. Students are responsible for ensuring they adhere to all requirements for special considerations.
5.3.2. A student is eligible to apply for special consideration for their course (e.g., lectures, tutorials, assessments, and examinations) if the student is ill or has extenuating circumstances in undertaking part or all of an assessment task that requires adjustments that exceed those afforded by an extension.
5.3.3. Examples of reasons for a special consideration include, but are not limited to:
a) Chronic mental or physical health conditions requiring reasonable adjustments.
b) Ongoing disability requiring reasonable adjustments.
c) Death or serious illness of an immediate family member, household member, close friend, or to a person who the student is a primary caregiver.
d) Serious personal injury or physical/psychological trauma.
e) Victim of a crime.
f) Breakdown of long-term relationship or divorce.
g) Sudden and unexpected loss of income or employment.
h) Serious disruptions to domestic arrangements e.g., eviction without proper notice).
i) Representing Australia or your State of Residence in a major sporting event (e.g., the Olympics).
j) Mandatory deployment or training related to military employment.
k) Requirement to attend a police interview.
l) Required to serve on a jury panel or attend a court/tribunal/hearing/etc.
m) Attendance at religious ceremony or cultural events of a unique nature with supporting documentation.
5.3.4. Special consideration requests must be submitted:
a) Via the online Special Considerations Form.
b) As soon as possible after the circumstance becomes apparent.
c) No later than 2 business days after the deadline of the assessment or examination, except in extreme circumstances (e.g., being in a coma).
5.3.5. Special consideration requests will not be considered for assessments for which marks have already been released.
5.3.6. Applications for special consideration must be supported by documentary evidence that may include:
a) A valid Health Care Professional Certification pro-forma report completed by
a health professional.
b) Official letters or communication.
c) Other appropriate and externally verifiable supporting evidence.
5.3.7. The evidence for special consideration (see 6.3.3) must outline the required adjustments to compensate for the special consideration. Without this information, the special consideration request may be denied, or a decision may be delayed until appropriate evidence and documented recommended adjustments are provided.
5.3.8. The evidence cannot be from a person who is a conflict of interest (e.g., a medical certificate from a family member).
5.3.9. Special considerations can be for a single unit, all units being currently completed, or all remaining units in a course, depending on the nature of the circumstance underlying the request.
5.3.10. The possible outcomes of a special consideration request can be found in Schedule A.
5.3.11. Course Coordinators reserve the right to determine the adjustments offered, which may or may not match recommended adjustments included with the supporting evidence. The Institute cannot guarantee that all adjustments can be made available.
5.3.12. Course Coordinators are responsible for reviewing special consideration requests.
5.3.13. Course Coordinators will respond to special consideration requests:
a) Within 5 business days of the request being submitted.
b) Within 5 business days of the release of final grades.
5.3.14. Where an application for special consideration is declined, the student must be notified in writing, given reasons for the denial, and informed of their option to appeal the decision under Student Grievance Policy and Procedure.
6. RATIFICATION AND PUBLISHING OF RESULTS
6.1. Ratification
6.1.1. Course teams must internally ratify the final grades for each semester at least one week before results release.
6.1.2. Within one week of results release, the Academic Registrar or nominee will submit all the results that have been ratified by course teams for the period to be formally ratified to the Dean and Associate Dean (Teaching & Learning) who will formally ratify, query, and approve the publishing of grades.
6.2. Publication of Results
6.2.1. Final results are published each semester in accordance with the Academic Calendar.
6.2.2. Where a student has an outstanding or unmarked assessment for a unit, they will receive a mark indicating that the grade for that unit is pending.
6.2.3. Pending grades will be replaced with the official ratified final grade once the assessment has been marked and the unit’s final grade has been ratified.
6.2.4. The Academic Registrar or nominee will then publish all approved results
7. SCHEDULE A: OUTCOMES OF AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OR REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS
In response to an eligible application for special consideration, or a request for assessment adjustment, the Course or Program Coordinator may:
- Defer assessment.
- Grant an extended period for assessment.
- Approve special arrangements for assessment (e.g., special examination conditions such as breaks, having a private room, or using a computer for paper-based examinations).
- Allow additional or alternative assessment.
- Allow other arrangements deemed appropriate to the circumstances of the student and course concerned (e.g., use of ergonomic chair for classes at Cairnmillar, use of assistive technologies).
- Decline special consideration.
- Permit a resubmission of assessment.
- Allow the student to re-do one or more assessment task/s.
- Cancel the application due to lateness or incompleteness.