Version Information
Mon, 08 Apr 2024
Approved by: Academic Board
Current Version: V1.3
Replaces Version: V1.2
Next Review: Thu, 04 Mar 2027
Domain:
Institute
Assessment and Moderation Policy
Purpose
- This policy provides a framework for assessment, grading and moderation in Metavision Institute’s professionally accredited training courses. Student assessment is integral to Metavision Institute’s academic standards and quality of student learning and is aligned with course and unit learning outcomes. Assessment is based on the principles of integrity and equity.
- The purpose of moderation is to confirm that student assessments have been designed and implemented in a manner that assures the integrity of the Institute’s courses, with respect to assessing students’ ability to apply the knowledge and skills specified in the learning outcomes of units at the designated training level.
Scope
This policy applies to all assessment tasks and related activities conducted in Metavision Institute’s professionally accredited training courses, including assessment and grading, and moderation.
Definitions
Academic integrity: the demonstration of values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in academic study, including preparing and submitting assessment tasks.
Academic Integrity in the content of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is an AI model capable of generating text, images, code, video, and audio. Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Copilot produce text from large datasets in response to text prompts (AAIN Generative Artificial The Metavision Institute seeks to balance safeguarding academic integrity with proactively contending with both the opportunities and threats of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to higher education.
Assessment: the process used to determine a student’s achievement of unit learning outcomes which may include a range of written, oral and skill demonstration methods. Assessment requires students to gather and evaluate information from multiple and diverse sources in order to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding, and the application of skills, as a result of educational experiences. Assessment feedback aims to improve student learning and performance on future tasks.
Assessment criteria: the specific knowledge, skills, values and actions expected to be demonstrated in the assessment task in order to achieve the specified learning outcomes.
Assessment extension: the new due date by which an assessment task must be submitted when students apply for extensions.
Authentic assessment: assessment tasks that by design assess the application of students’ knowledge and skills in real world settings, or require students to critically reflect on their own experience, and therefore are highly valid forms of assessment (Gulikers, J. T. M., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A Five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 52-86. DOI: 10.1007/BF02504676).
Consensus moderation (validation): the processes used by Metavision Institute’s academic teaching staff to reach a general agreement about the expected outcomes for assessment tasks and criteria for grades.
Extenuating circumstances: events or situations that prevent students from completing and submitting assessment tasks by the due date, excluding poor time management, or over commitment of study workload.
Formative assessment: assessment tasks typically placed early in the semester that are designed to provide feedback on performance to improve and accelerate students’ learning.
Grading:
Hurdle Assessments or Tasks are an assessment or task that requires a level of performance or task to be completed as a condition of passing the unit.
Learning Outcomes are the expression of the set of knowledge, skills and the application of the knowledge and skills a person has acquired and is able to demonstrate as a result of learning.
Marking rubric: a tool that defines the criteria and standards used to evaluate and grade achievement of marking criteria for an assessment task.
Moderation: a process for quality assurance of assessment grading and marking. Moderation ensures that decisions regarding student performance in assessment are accurate, consistent, fair and comparable to external standards and benchmarks. The moderation process is cyclical. It begins with the design of assessments, and continues through course delivery, shapes both formative and summative assessment tasks and concludes with analysis of student cohort performance and the integrity of assessments.
Moderation of assessment: involves quality assurance, control processes and activities such as peer review that aim to assure:
- consistency or comparability, appropriateness, and fairness of assessment judgments
- the validity and reliability of assessment tasks, criteria and standards.
Moderation of assessment processes establish comparability of standards of student performance across, for example, different markers, locations, subjects, providers and/or courses of study.
Plagiarism: The Oxford Dictionary defines plagiarism as ‘the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.’
Self-Plagiarism: Is a form of plagiarism where a student copies their own work from one failed assessment into a repeat assessment.
Special circumstances:
a) unforeseen and significant events or situations that prevent students from completing and submitting assessment tasks by the due date or affect their performance in assessment.
b) provisions that allow a student to apply for supplementary assessment or some other form of consideration, including a conceded pass in situations where it can be demonstrated that assessment has been adversely affected by special circumstances.
Summative assessment: assessment tasks that test the achievement of unit learning outcomes because of students’ learning within the unit.
Weighting: The Weighting of an Assessment Item is the percentage that the item contributes to the calculation of the Final Grade of a Student.
Relevant TEQSA Threshold Standards
HESF: Standard 1.4 Learning Outcomes and Assessment; 3 Teaching Design; 5.2 Academic and Research Integrity; 5.3 Monitoring, Review and Improvement; 7.2 Information for Prospective and Current Students.
Policy
1. Assessment design
- Assessment tasks include both formative assessment tasks that are typically placed early in the semester, and summative assessment tasks.
- Assessment tasks are aligned with course and unit learning outcomes, and Metavision Institute’s graduate attributes.
- Assessment tasks have clearly articulated marking criteria and are appropriate for the training level and year level of the unit.
- Rubrics are developed for each assessment task based on the marking criteria to ensure consistency in marking and grading, and that marks and grades awarded reflect each student’s level of achievement.
- Assessment tasks represent an appropriate workload for the unit’s credit point weighting.
- Assessment tasks are designed to increase in complexity and challenge as students’ progress through the course.
- A range of assessment genres is developed for each unit as appropriate for the learning outcomes and content, including written, oral presentation, skills demonstration, and work-integrated learning assessment tasks.
2. Grading Types
- Two types of grading are used: a grading scale and a competency grade Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory). The choice of grading type will be based on the learning activities, the learning outcomes and the type of assessment;
- Units may use only a grading scale, only a competency grade, or a combination of both;
- Where both types of grading are used in one unit
- the competency grade (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) will be a ‘hurdle’ assessment. That is, it must be ‘satisfactory’ for the student to pass the unit;
- the Competency grade (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) will not be given a % mark;
- a unit must have a minimum of two assessments that are graded using the grading scale to arrive at a final mark.
- The use of the type of assessment used will be explained in the Unit Outline.
2. Prevention of plagiarism
- Assessment design is intended to minimise the risk of plagiarism by students by regularly changing assessment tasks and by using authentic assessment methods, for example, demonstrations of counselling skills and practice sessions, including peer learning.
- Plagiarism, including the use of AI tools used to generate text, must be checked prior to the online submission of written assessments.
- Where a student is approved to resit an assessment, the Course Coordinator will set a new assessment task to avoid self-plagiarism.
3. Submission of assessment items
- Students are required to submit a cover page for each assessment task that includes the following information:
- Student name and ID
- Unit title and code
- Title and number of the assignment
- Date due, and
- A signed statement that the assignment is the student’s own work.
- Students must keep a copy of all assignments submitted for assessment.
- The penalty for late submission of assessment tasks is 5% of the assessment weighting per day to a total of 7 days. Failure to submit an assessment 7 days after a due date, without prior approval for an extension, will result in a 0 grade or Not Satisfactory.
- An extension request may be made by completing the Assignment Extension Request webform located on the Student Forms page 7 days before the due date for submission.
- A formal request for extension is the only way students can be granted an extension. Students should not ask for, or accept, verbal approval of extension requests. Verbal extension requests may not be given by academic staff, and if given, may not be honoured by Metavision Institute.
- Students will be notified of the outcome of the request promptly, usually within two business days.
- One extension of 7 days is permitted automatically.
- An extension for 7-14 days must be made on the Application for Extension Form at least 7 days before the due date of the assessment.
- Approval of extension requests is at the discretion of Metavision Institute.
- The Institute will keep a record of requests for extension and ensure that the proper procedure is followed by academic staff and students.
- Applications for extensions must be made at least 7 business days before the due date of the extension.
- Depending on the type of request for extension, students will be notified of the outcome of an application by email:
- automatically for an automatic extension of 7 business days
- by the Unit Coordinator promptly, usually within two business days, following receipt for an extension of 7-14 days
- by the Dean (Education) promptly, usually within three business days following receipt of a Special Considerations application.
- If the extension request is granted, the assignment must be submitted on or prior to the new submission date, after which date a submission will not be accepted.
- Assessments must be submitted within the semester of study, and within the calendar year of study if being granted in semester 2, unless otherwise approved by the Dean (Education) as a Special Consideration, or where placement arrangements break down.
- A student may nominate for a single opportunity to resubmit a failed assessment worth 20% or greater. The Intention to Submit a Resubmission Form is to be used. The resubmission will be submitted to the Course Coordinator and is due 7 days after the date of the student’s feedback. The request for resubmission will only be considered if the student has:
- meaningfully attempted the assessment activity (i.e. have made a tangible attempt to address the requirements of the assessment activity), and
- submitted the assessment activity by the due date (either the original due date or an extended/deferred due date granted in accordance with this policy;
- not already received an opportunity for formal feedback on a draft of the assessment activity or completed a similar assessment set as a scaffolded activity to the final assessment, or;
- not received answer guides as part of the feedback.
4. Students with a disability
The Course Coordinator will make available alternative assessment methods for students with a disability who require reasonable adjustment.
5. Special consideration
- Students may apply for special consideration to the Dean (Education) if their performance in assessment tasks is affected by a situation or circumstance beyond their control that could not reasonably have been prevented, for example illness, misadventure, bereavement, end of relationship, loss of employment or natural disaster.
- Relevant documentary evidence must accompany applications for special consideration, including a medical certificate, a letter from a health practitioner or employer, or a funeral notice.
- A request for an extension must be made 7 days prior to the due date for an assessment.
- If a request for extension is longer than 14 days, or illness, injury or other issues prevent a student from completing assessments or placements by the end of the semester, they may apply for Special Consideration’ using the Special Consideration Form.
- The Special Consideration Form must be
- accompanied with documentary evidence
- include a proposed deadline
- signed by the Unit and Course Coordinators who will ensure that the application for Special Consideration is completed in line with this Policy
- submitted to the Dean (Education) for approval.
- If special consideration is granted, the student may be given an additional extension of time, or a supplementary assessment, or a conceded pass.
- Usually, deadlines for the completion of Special Consideration should be completed within the semester of study. However, where the Dean (Education) grants an extension beyond the semester of study, the student will be given a Grade Pending (GP) or a Placement Not Yet Complete (PL), as required.
- The GP grade will be converted to a substantive grade within one semester and prior to the commencement of the following academic year, otherwise the assessment will automatically lapse to a fail. An exception to this rule may be made by the Dean (Education) for substantiated and substantial extenuating circumstances. A detailed record must be kept of decisions made.
- The PL grade will be converted to a substantive Grade Map 2 grade within one semester and prior to the commencement of the following academic year, otherwise the assessment automatically lapses to a Not Satisfactory.
6. Assessment marking and grading
- Assessment decisions are made by academic teaching staff against the stated marking criteria using the marking rubric to ensure consistency of assessment outcomes.
- Feedback on assessment items is respectful, timely (within 21 days), and makes clear to students the reasons for the mark and grade awarded.
- Feedback on assessment items is provided to students in several ways according to the assessment genre, including verbal or written comments from lecturers directly on the assessment, or via Sophia.
- Feedback includes how students can improve their learning and performance on future assessment tasks.
- Where a combination of the two types of assessments is used, a student’s final recorded grade will be based on the graded assessments. A student must achieve a Satisfactory Grade for the hurdle assessment to pass the Unit.
- Where a unit only uses graded assessments, the weighting noted on the Unit Description will apply.
- Weighting is not applied to units where Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory only is used.
- Students may appeal an assessment grade by completing a Review of Grade Request Form, located on the Student Forms page.
7. Approval of grades
The aggregation of student marks and grades is checked for errors for each unit by the Course Coordinator, prior to submission to the Grade Review Committee.
Students’ unit grades are released to students via Sophia following approval by the Teaching and Learning Committee at the end of each semester.
8. Moderation
- Consensus moderation is conducted at the beginning of the semester when there is more than one assessor in the unit to reach agreement on the expected standard and outcomes of assessment tasks.
- Moderation of assessment and results is a quality assurance strategy directed at ensuring the reliability and validity of assessment and ensuring assessments are appropriately designed for the AQF Level of the course. Moderation tests whether the standard of marking within units is appropriate and consistent. The Academic Board is responsible for oversight of assessment moderation reports.
- At the commencement of each semester, a moderation schedule will be developed by the Course Director to determine the assessment items that will be cross marked internally and externally. The moderation schedule will be submitted to the Grade Review Committee at the end of each semester.
- Internal moderation: Consensus moderation in the form of collaborative marking activities will be used each semester to ensure that effective and consistent assessment occurs across markers within a unit.
- External Moderation
- External moderation is utilised to benchmark assessment methods and criteria, and marking and grading outcomes, to improve consistency of marking and grading practices within Metavision Institute’s professionally accredited training courses;
- Metavision Institute will engage an external academic in the discipline of counselling and psychotherapy to review and moderate assessment for one unit per semester for each year level (two in total). Different units will be selected for moderation each semester.
Responsibilities
The Academic Board has delegated responsibility by the Governance Board for the academic governance and leadership of Metavision Institute. The Academic Board ensures that policies, procedures, and processes are in place to monitor and protect the academic integrity of the student experience.
The Teaching and Learning Committee
- Ongoing monitoring and quality assurance processes for teaching and learning, including assessment;
- Confirming student results at the end of each semester based on the recommendation of the Assessment Committee, and;
- Advising the Academic Board of the need for revisions to policies and guidelines related to assessment and moderation.
The Course Advisory Committee
- The quality assurance of curriculum and oversight of the development of units and assessment tasks.
- Assuring TEQSA compliance.
The Grade Review Committee
- is a sub-committee of the Teaching and Learning Committee.
- The Grade Review Committee
- approves the Moderation Schedule;
- considers the assessments submitted to it at the end of each semester by the Course Coordinator for approval;
- recommends a final grade for each student enrolled in units at the end of each semester to the Teaching and Learning Committee, and;
- monitors the incidence of grade inflation and/or deflation across the student cohort compared to student performance in the units in previous semesters;
- Approves recommendations for graduands;
- Communicates graduand decisions to the Academic Board.
The Dean (Education)
- overseeing and delegating to the Course Coordinator and Unit Coordinators and providing guidance as required;
- developing and implementing strategies to enhance the student experience and enhance student retention, course progression and completion, and reduce attrition;
- implementing and monitoring the Academic Integrity Policy;
- special Consideration applications;
- assuring integrity, consistency and compliance with this Policy by providing oversight and coordination of assessment processes and practices;
- overseeing the implementation of all Institute Policies that apply to assessment and moderation;
- ensuring work processes are in place to manage student applications for extensions that adhere to this Policy;
- overseeing the assessment, feedback and moderation activities of Course Coordinators, Unit Coordinators teaching staff and markers;
- submitting assessments to the Grade Review Committee in line with calendar expectations, and making representations to the Grade Review Committee where required;
- reporting on Student Unit Evaluations, Course Experience Questionnaire and Graduate Destination Survey from students and staff to the Dean (Education)
- preparing recommendations for minor and major changes in assessments to the Learning and Teaching Committee.
The Course Coordinator
- ensuring that Assessment Item information is accurate and consistent across all sources;
- ensuring that clarification and support is provided as soon as practical but not later than two (2) Business Days for student enquiries that relate to Assessment Items;
- ensuring that timely, constructive and specific feedback is provided to students by the timelines identified for marking (where marking is completed by a Marker);
- moderating Assessment Marks where markers are involved;
- educating students about Academic Integrity and actively monitoring Student submissions for breaches of Academic Integrity;
- ensuring that results are accurately recorded and recommend Final Grades to the Program Director;
- engaging with students to pursue informal resolution to resolve concerns about Assessment Items, feedback and marking;
- recommending alternate timeframes for Assessment Item extensions, where required;
- ensuring assessment information is updated each semester in the online learning environment and that clear advice is provided to students;
- planning the timing of assessment tasks to avoid an imbalance of assessment load toward the end of semester across all units;
- report allegations of potential breaches of academic integrity to the Dean (Education);
- managing requests for extensions, excluding Special Consideration requests.
Unit Coordinators
- reporting allegations of breaches of the academic integrity policy to the Course Coordinator;
- educating students about Academic Integrity and actively monitoring Student submissions for breaches of Academic Integrity;
- ensuring that the Marks awarded for each Assessment Item and the Final Grade of a Student are consistent with the Grade Descriptors set out in the Grades Procedure;
- ensuring that timely, constructive and specific feedback is provided to Students by the timelines identified for marking;
- ensuring students are aware of applications for extensions that adhere to this Policy;
- ensuring that clarification and support is provided as soon as practical but not later than two (2) Business Days for student enquiries that relate to Assessment Items;
- for group Assessment Items, ensuring that each Student can participate in, and contribute meaningfully to the Assessment Item, and mechanisms are in place that facilitates the respectful and timely resolution of group conflicts;
- ensuring that timely, constructive and specific feedback is provided to students by the timelines identified for marking (where marking is completed by the Unit Coordinator);
- submitting results in a timely manner;
- managing requests for extensions in line with this Policy.
Academic teaching staff
- completing the tasks for which they are employed and appropriate to their level of appointment and role;
- adhering to this and other Policies, procedures, guidelines and forms that apply to assessment and moderation.
Students
- reparation and timely submission of assessments through Metavision Institute’s learning management system, Sophia, by the published due date;
- applying for an extension at least 7 days before the due date, when extenuating or special circumstances affect their timely preparation of assessment tasks.
Academic Markers
- completion of assessment marking in line with this policy;
- reporting assessment marking in the manner required by Metavision Institute;
- identification of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct as outlined in the Academic Integrity Policy;
- reporting potential plagiarism and academic misconduct to the Course Coordinator.
Related Documents
Internal
- Assignment Extension Request Form
- https://metavision.edu.au/study/current-students/student-forms/
- Intention to Submit a Resubmission Form
- https://metavision.edu.au/study/current-students/student-forms/
- Learning and Teaching Plan
- Review of Grade Request Form
- https://metavision.edu.au/study/current-students/student-forms/
- Student Grievance Complaints and Appeal Policy (Academic)
- https://metavision.edu.au/institute/policies/student-grievance-complaints-and-appeal-policy-academic/
- Special Consideration Form
- https://metavision.edu.au/study/current-students/student-forms/
- Work Integrated Learning Policy
- https://metavision.edu.au/institute/policies/work-integrated-learning-policy/
- Student Misconduct Policy
- https://metavision.edu.au/institute/policies/student-misconduct-policy/
External
- TEQSA Assessment Insights September 2018
- https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/assessment-insights-sept-2018.pdf
- TEQSA Guidance Note: Academic quality assurance
- https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/resources/guidance-notes/guidance-note-academic-quality-assurance
Previous Versions
Effective Date | 04 March 2024 | ||
Review Date | 04 March 2027 | ||
Approval Date | 21st Feb 2024 | ||
Responsible Officer | Dean (Education) | ||
Reason for change to V1.2 | Administrative changes; improvements to grading to include Satisfactory/ Unsatisfactory grading; clarification of extensions and Special Considerations; tightening of rules associated with submitting assessments within the semester of study; addition of responsibilities for Unit Coordinators, Academics and Markers; inclusion of responsibilities re academic integrity. | ||
Approved by Academic Board | 4th February 2024 |
Enquiries Contact: policy@metavision.edu.au