Policies

Assessment Policy 2011 January 01

Purpose: [Brief statement as to why the policy is required]

Audience: Staff, Students

Supporting Procedures:

Assessment Policy Exemption Procedure

Contact Officer: Secretary to Academic Council Phone: See Campus Directory

Printed copies are for reference only. Please refer to the electronic copy in Policy and Procedure ManagerTM [the electronic policy management system (EPMS)] to

ensure you are referring to the latest version.

This policy will apply to students enrolled in units with a start date after 1 January 2011

To ensure you are looking at the correct Assessment Policy depending on your enrolment date, please click on the following URL:

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/goto/assessmentpolicies

Preamble:

Assessment is the process of collecting evidence and making judgements as to how well students have achieved the intended learning outcomes. It is the means by which progress or achievement in a unit is evaluated. This can include a wide range of assessment methods including, but not limited to, assessment methods such as essays, examinations, project work, seminar papers, performance, creative works and tutorial participation. Assessment is a key part of the teaching and learning environment. Murdoch University values ethical behaviour and does not tolerate dishonesty.

Policy:

1. PRINCIPLES OF HIGH QUALITY ASSESSMENT:

1.1 Assessment should be designed to measure students’ achievements against explicit learning objectives: to promote learning; and improve student performance.

1.2 Assessment in a unit should involve more than one type of assessment task.

1.3 Assessment methods and the criteria by which work will be judged should be explicit, based solely on academic achievement and reflect the objectives stated for the unit.

1.4 Assessment should be demonstrably fair and every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that it does not discriminate on grounds which are irrelevant to the achievement of the unit objectives.

1.5 Feedback should be informative and constructive and, so long as work is submitted by the due date, provided in time to be useful in subsequent assessment in the unit.

1.6 Grading processes should be transparent and reflect the extent to which the student has achieved the assessable objectives stated for the unit.

2. SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT POLICY:

2.1 This policy applies to coursework assessment in all undergraduate units; all honours units; and all postgraduate units.

2.2 For those undergraduate units with greater points in value than 4, each individual unit component will be subject to the same requirements as a unit.

2.3 Assessment of research work in higher research degree programs is covered by the Postgraduate Research Degrees Regulations. However, penalties associated with Academic Misconduct in research degrees are included in the Student Discipline Regulations and Student Discipline Procedure.

3. PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT:

3.1 For students:

3.1.1 provide feedback on how effectively they are learning;

3.1.2 engage them in their learning;

3.1.3 provide evidence that they have reached the required standard; and

3.1.4 provide evidence to show other people of their learning achievements.

3.2 For academic staff:

3.2.1 provide evidence that their students have reached a particular standard;

3.2.2 provide evidence on what students know before commencing the unit; and

3.3.3 provide feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching.

3.3 For the University:

3.3.1 provide evidence that students have achieved learning outcomes;

3.3.2 provide evidence on how effective the teaching is;

3.3.3 provide evidence to show others that students have achieved what the institution claims they have; and

3.3.4 provide evidence that students have reached a particular standard.

3.4 For the Community:

3.4.1 provide evidence on what students have learned and the standards they have reached;

3.4.2 provide evidence that graduates are employable; and

3.4.3 provide evidence that institutions and their teaching programs are effective.

4. INFORMATION ON VARIOUS APPROACHES TO ASSESSMENT:

4.1 Diagnostic Assessment:

Assessment can be conducted at the beginning of a unit in order to provide teaching staff with information on what students know prior to the commencement of a unit. Such diagnostic assessment ascertains the extent to which students possess presumed knowledge. It can help prevent assumptions being made about what students know and allows teaching staff to adapt their teaching accordingly. Diagnostic assessment may also provide effective feedback to students on what they should have learnt in another unit. This does not contribute to the final grade.

4.2 Formative Assessment:

An important factor determining learning effectiveness is the quality of the feedback students receive on their performance while they are learning. Assessment that is conducted to provide students with feedback on their performance and rarely contributes to their final grade is known as formative assessment. To be effective formative assessment should be conducted throughout the teaching period beginning at an early stage, and feedback to students should include suggestions on how performance might be improved. Formative assessment also provides teaching staff with valuable feedback on what students are learning and how effectively they are teaching.

4.3 Summative Assessment:

The main reason summative assessment is carried out is to provide students, academic staff, the institution and employers with evidence of the extent to which

students have achieved intended learning outcomes. To fulfil this purpose summative assessment must be valid and reliable as well as being systematically recorded and communicated.

4.4 Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment:

Assessment practices of academic staff may include opportunities for students to develop the skills of self-assessment, which is an important outcome of professional education and a key skill for lifelong and independent learning. Students can be encouraged to assess their own performance, and that of their peers, and to compare their own perceptions of that performance with the judgements made by academic staff and by their peers.

4.5 Authentic Assessment:

“Authentic” has a specific meaning in the context of assessment, especially in professional contexts associated with the subject or discipline. To be authentic, assessment tasks should be seen by students to be challenging, interesting and meaningful, and where possible should be related to real-life applications. Authentic assessment has the capacity to provide students with motivation to engage in learning.

4.6 Program Assessment:

The aggregated results of assessment of individual student learning provide the institution, Government and other stakeholders, including the professions, with evidence on the effectiveness of academic programs at unit, course or program level. This aspect of assessment may be referred to as program assessment. The institutional role of assessment requires that assessment outcomes are recorded in a form that allows comparison between results for the same unit over time, among different units in the same institution and among similar units at other institutions. Program assessment should be conducted on a regular basis and be linked to planning processes involving curriculum and resources.

4.7 Criterion and Norm-referenced Assessment:

Criterion-referenced assessment involves the assessment of student performance against pre-determined criteria related to the learning outcomes of the unit. Norm-referenced assessment assesses student performance against the performance of other students. A criterion-referenced approach to assessment policy and practice is advocated.

With criterion-referenced assessment, the criteria by which work is to be judged are made explicit and the grade awarded is intended to directly reflect how well the student has met the criteria. Within a purely criterion referenced assessment system, students are not judged in comparison to each other, every student might achieve the highest grade or none might.

In contrast, with normative assessment, marks are awarded based on a predetermined distribution. The most common form of normative assessment, sometimes called ‘grading on the curve’ or ‘bell curve marking’, assumes marks are distributed according to a standard distribution curve. Certain proportions of each grade are awarded, for example, one third each passes and credit passes, one sixth each distinctions and high distinctions. This means that each student's grade on the unit is determined in part by how well other students on the unit do.

Criterion-referenced assessment is the preferred method of assessment at Murdoch University because, by definition, it provides students with clear information on the standards of work which attract a particular mark or grade. It also implies that final grading depends on each student's learning, regardless of the performance of other students in the class or cohort. The literature on adult learning stresses that criterion-referenced assessment is the most appropriate approach to use when the aim is to foster individual learning and development - rather than selection and ranking. Criterion-referenced assessment is educationally sound because it conveys

a clear message that each student can take control over their own learning. It is increasingly clear in the research literature that 'grading on the curve' discourages many students to strive for excellence. Furthermore, under a criterion-referenced assessment system, feedback to students is particularly useful because the focus is on how their current performance matches up to initially determined standards - which are known to them - and how they can improve their performance to achieve a higher mark or grade.

5. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE FOR ASSESSMENT:

5.1 Students should have the opportunity to show what they have learned in different ways and at different times. There is some ambiguity about what constitutes a different method of assessment. Generally, it is not considered a different method of assessment if the only difference is whether it is supervised or not. Judgment will be needed in order to maintain the spirit of the policy that students should have the opportunity to demonstrate their learning in different ways. Attention is drawn to the following website which lists a wide range of assessment methods and their strengths and weaknesses.

5.2 Where a Grade in a Murdoch Unit is Based on Enrolment at Another Institution:

Several Murdoch courses mandate that the student must study in another institution as part of their course (e.g. language courses). In these circumstances, a Murdoch unit designation is sometimes used as a “shell” to present the combined results of studies undertaken by students in other institutions. Units or courses taken by Murdoch students when enrolled in other institutions, where the marking and grading of the course is undertaken by the other institution, need not comply with the Murdoch Assessment policy. However, where a Murdoch shell unit exists, and a Murdoch grade is awarded on the performance of the students in courses/units at other institutions, students must be informed of the basis on which their grade in the Murdoch shell unit will be determined and how their performance at other institutions will contribute to their grade through the Unit Information and Learning Guide.

6. TYPES OF UNITS:

This policy recognises three types of units that are in coursework degree offerings (“regular units”), work placement based units and research or project based units. These are not mutually exclusive.

6.1 Regular Units:

These units form the majority of units offered by the university. They involve a wide range of teaching methodologies including lectures, tutorials, laboratories, workshops and individual and group readings and activities. They also utilise a wide range of assessment strategies. Most regular units are designed primarily for individual learning with the objectives of acquiring knowledge, skills and experience in a particular field or discipline and in generic skills acquisition. They may include some elements of group or cooperative work with other students without this being the major objective. Other regular units, however, may have the development of collaborative processes as a major unit objective and involve substantial components of group learning and task completion.

6.2 Work Placement Based Units:

These units require a student to carry out a major work placement. Placements include industry placements, and school-based experiences. Generally, there is individual supervision, either of the student or a small group of students, with the supervisor providing feedback and/or monitoring progress throughout the project or placement. These units operate under the Workplace Learning Policy and Professional Behaviours Policy. Assessments must integrate with these Policies.

6.3 Research or Project-Based Units:

These units require completion of a research or problem solving project or applied performance or task, for example, an honours dissertation, a design brief, a production, an independent study contract or a curriculum development project.

7. ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MANAGEMENT:

7.1 Sources of Evidence:

Assessment of a unit shall be based on more than one assessment point in time and more than one assessment method while ensuring that the amount of work required is appropriate to the credit points value of the unit. No one component or assessment method should account for more than 70% of the final mark. For work placement–based units and research or project-based units, there may only be one form of assessment and/or one actual assessment point. In such situations, students will be provided with sufficient quantitative and qualitative information about their performance leading up to the assessment point that they are able to position their performance relative to the unit’s learning objectives and a possible final grade.

7.2 Supervised Assessment:

At least one component of work shall be undertaken in the presence of academic staff and/or a university approved invigilator or supervisor, with the total supervised assessment accounting for at least 30% of the final mark. This may include: written tests or examinations; seminar/tutorial presentations including responses to questions; practical tasks including laboratory work or performance, technical or field work; oral assessment if recorded and/or two members of academic staff are present and class participation. The Unit Coordinator may choose to require a minimum mark, up to and including a pass, in one or more supervised components in order for a student to pass the unit. In this case the supervised component must be worth at least 20% of the overall assessment of the unit. Individual components may be grouped together to achieve the 20%.

7.3 Group Work:

Where group projects are assessed, procedures for establishing roles and responsibilities of group members, mechanisms for gauging the contributions of individuals to group projects, and procedures for the resolution of disputes or for dealing with defaulting group members must be in place and described to students in writing.

Where collaborative learning/teamwork/joint production is not a major stated objective of a regular unit group projects may account for up to 30% of the final unit mark. Where collaborative learning/teamwork/joint production is a major stated objective of a regular unit and forms a substantial component of the teaching within the unit, group projects may account for up to 70% of the final unit mark but the allocation of a common portion of the mark to the whole group should not exceed half of the total marks for the unit. Where the whole unit involves a single project by a group these restrictions do not apply.

7.4 Peer Assessment:

Peer assessment shall not account for more than 15% of the final unit mark. It must be accompanied by Procedures and written Guidelines for promoting fairness, consistency and respect by students making judgements on other students’ work.

7.5 Class Attendance and Participation:

When a student is attending campus, a minimum class attendance may be required in order to pass a unit but attendance as such cannot form part of the graded assessment. Reasons for requiring mandatory attendance must go beyond the purported educational benefit to the individual and may involve (i) statutory issues such as mandatory occupational health and safety training, (ii) professional accreditation requirement where there is a clear written guideline from the

accrediting body that a minimum number of hours should be spent on an activity, (iii) failure to attend impacts the learning of other students in for example, team or group activities. Class participation, in contrast to attendance, may be assessed but shall not be worth more than 15% of the final mark. When class participation is assessed, the criteria by which participation is to be judged must be made explicit. Where attendance is mandatory, this must be clearly explained in the Unit Information and Learning Guide to deal with situations in which students cannot attend because of circumstances outside their control.

7.6 Negative Marking:

Negative marking (in which a mark less than zero is allocated to any part of any component) is not permitted to be used as part of any assessment.

7.7 Equivalence of Assessment between Various Modes of Offering:

Equivalent assessments are ones where each are of equal value, worth or importance to the assessor in making judgements about a learner’s achievements or performance. When a unit is offered in differing modes or locations, there may be valid reasons for varying the assessment. However, when this occurs, it is important that equivalent assessment is in place. This does not imply exact or equal assessment. When Unit Coordinators are establishing equivalent assessments the comparability framework (Appendix A) should be used to develop and ensure equivalence. Various characteristics identified in the framework must be equivalent.

7.8 Feedback:

7.8.1 Principles:

§ Feedback should show respect for diversity and individuality and should be directed at the work rather than the student.

• Feedback should be given to students as soon as possible.

• Feedback should accompany the mark or grade.

§ Feedback should be critical, but supportive to learning, so as to encourage a student's confident scrutiny of their future work.

§ Feedback should be related to learning outcomes and given assessment criteria, so that students are very clear on what was and will be expected of them.

§ Feedback on work should go beyond editing (grammar, spelling, mathematical notation, presentation) and link to the broader learning outcomes.

7.8.2 Timing:

Where a specific assessment task has a function to improve student performance within the unit, it must provide informative and constructive feedback in time to be useful for subsequent assessment in the unit. The timing of assessment components in the unit must then consider both whether the students have had sufficient time to master the materials and skills addressed in the practical assessment task and whether sufficient time has been allowed for constructive and informative marking to provide feedback to the student. Similarly, where ongoing activities are being assessed as for example in workplace based units feedback must be timed to allow the student an appropriate period in which to improve this performance.

7.9 Management of Group, Self and Peer Assessment and Assessment of Participation:

7.9.1 Group Work:

Collaborative learning is an important element of the learning process at Murdoch University. It may be used for a variety of purposes, for example:

• as a process for teaching interactive working techniques (teamwork, negotiation skills, role allocation, task completion and conflict management);

• as a means for enhancing students’ understanding of course content (peer support, clarification and refinement of concepts through discussion, rehearsal, and the resolution of conflict); and

• as a means of demonstrating achievement of graduate attributes.

Group work, under proper conditions, can support student learning and be a positive experience. Under less than ideal conditions, however, it can become the vehicle for acrimony and conflict. It may also impose a host of unexpected stresses on, for example, students with overcrowded home and work schedules living long distances from the University.

Collaborative learning may occur without the product of that learning being assessed through a group project or group assessment. The skills developed in group projects, however, are vital in work and community life since many tasks and projects are performed by teams, not separate individuals. Learning to be part of a team also involves accepting that a collective judgement will often be made of the whole project. Where the development of collaborative learning processes, teamwork or joint production is seen as an important outcome of a course/unit, a well rounded assessment regime is expected to include some group assessment.

Where students are required to complete assignment tasks in groups and/or to be assessed as a group they should be provided with effective material, instruction and support. In particular, it is the responsibility of the Unit Co-ordinator and tutors:

7.9.1.1 To establish explicit procedures for group work which are transparent, equitable and contain proper processes of review:

Procedures for group work should be detailed in the Unit Information and Learning Guides (UILGs). This should include the following information:

• The purpose and function of the group project including why it is appropriate for the assignment to be completed in groups and how the process and content of the project will help achieve the stated learning objectives in the unit.

• How group conflict will be dealt with by the lecturer/tutor and the respective role(s) of the staff member and student group members. The stress should be on conflict as a breakdown in the system/process rather than the attachment of blame to individuals. If employees in the workplace, for example, are unable to deal with a problem they are expected to take it to someone who can deal with it.

• How the project will be assessed including how marks will be allocated between the collaborative process (i.e. the ways individuals collaborated during the project) and the assignment content in the final group document and/or presentation.

Students must receive written notification of any changes in assessment procedures.

7.9.1.2 To manage the planning, development and implementation of processes and procedures for learning through group work:

Students have other commitments which make it difficult to attend the University outside of scheduled class hours. In units that use group methods of assessment it is therefore recommended that some scheduled class times be dedicated to group meetings. In-class supervision and discussion of group assignments should be built into the schedule of classes in a way that reflects the weighting of assessment allocated to group work.

Staff should provide advice and support to students about the formation and conduct of groups and, in consultation with students, establish ground rules about:

• the selection of group members;

• the role(s) of group members and the responsibility of members to each other;

• the conduct of group meetings – frequency and timing and group contact outside of scheduled class times;

• feedback stages during the assignment period to report group progress and final outcomes; and

• assessing the real contribution of each member to the group project, (e.g. using individual process diaries, peer/external assessment of collaborative process and assignment content).

The weighting for group assessment in the determination of unit grades requires careful consideration, keeping in mind the Assessment Policy which requires Unit Coordinators to ensure that they can judge the individual contribution of each student and that grades properly reflect the levels of performance of each student. Group assessment, like any assessment must meet the criteria of rigour, validity, fairness and appropriateness to the unit objectives.

It is generally preferable that assessment take into consideration the collaborative process (i.e. the way individuals collaborated during the project) not just the assignment content in the final group document and/or presentation. Refer to clause 7.3 for assessment requirements for group work.

Whenever a group assessment is a high proportion of the final grade, Unit Coordinators must have procedures in place which ensure that the contributions of individual group members are taken into account in final grades. There are a number of mechanisms which can be used for the allocation of grades.

7.9.1.3 Shared Group Mark:

The group submits one assessment item and, where it is impossible to make a distinction, all group members receive the same mark.

The group submits one assessment item and a proportion of the mark is allocated to this combined assessment item, which is equally shared by the group members, and a proportion of the mark is also allocated for an individual’s group planning papers or an individual paper analysing the group process.

7.9.1.4 Group Contracts:

A group assessment item may have a number of distinct components, in this instance group members develop a contract

between themselves specifying the component for which they are responsible. In this instance marks may be awarded for each separate component or for the project as a whole with the group allocating, within the confines of the overall mark, individual marks on the basis of each members’ contribution.

7.9.1.5 Peer Assessment of Contributions:

Criteria are established for the competencies students are expected to demonstrate within the group assessment item. The assessment item is marked in terms of these criteria and then within the confines of that mark the group members are asked to determine the relative contributions of each member and allocate individual marks.

Evaluation of the group process, is via discussions between teaching staff and students on the distribution of work among group members, the way members of the group interacted and the use of resources, on the basis of which the teaching staff allocate individual marks for the contributions of each member.

7.9.1.6 Individual Marks:

Group-based activities may be set as assessment items for which each member of the group submits an individual assessment item, receiving separate and different marks. To assess individual’s contributions to group assessment, marks may also be assigned on the basis of a viva or a set of examination questions undertaken by the student on the content and process associated with the completed group assessment item.

7.9.2 Self Assessment:

Self assessment may be used to develop in students the ability to think critically about their learning, to determine what criteria should be used in judging their work and to apply these objectively to their own work in order to facilitate their lifelong learning. Self assessment may be undertaken simply as a learning activity within the unit requirements.

There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to self promote and Unit Co-ordinators must be sensitive to such differences and provide a proforma which increases the likelihood that students are able to judge by the same criteria.

Mechanisms which can be used include:

7.9.2.1 Self Marking:

Students are provided with detailed model answers and commentaries for the purpose of comparing their own responses. In addition, a marking sheet is provided upon which students are asked to detail the differences between the model responses and their own and to award a mark. Teaching staff moderate the responses maintaining or modifying the marks awarded.

7.9.2.2 Class Generated Criteria for Self Assessment:

Assessment criteria for an assessment item are generated and agreed by the class in discussion with the staff member. These criteria are used by each student to develop a critique of their own assessment item. Both the assessment item and the critique are provided to the staff member who marks the assignment and then compares that critique with the student's. Marks may be awarded for both the assignment and the critique.

7.9.3 Peer Assessment:

Peer assessment may be used to develop in students the ability to work, to be critical of others work and receive critical appraisals of their own work. Peer assessment may be undertaken simply as a learning activity within the unit requirements.

Peer assessment must ensure that students are treated with fairness, consistency and respect by other students and are not subjected to unnecessary embarrassment. There should be clear guidelines and criteria for students judging each others' work. A mechanism which can be used:

7.9.3.1 Peer Marking:

The assessment item and the assessment criteria are discussed by the staff and students. There is an agreed understanding as to the learning outcomes required. Completed assessment items are randomly distributed to students who are required to complete a marking sheet identifying whether their peer had met the assessment criteria. These marks are moderated by the staff member and together with the peer marking sheets are returned with the assessment item.

The assessment item and the assessment criteria are discussed by the staff and students. There is an agreed understanding as to the learning outcomes required. Each student in a group (e.g. a tutorial group) is then required to complete an assessment sheet on each other students’ work (e.g. a tutorial presentation or display). These marks are collated and possibly moderated by the staff member to form an overall mark. The overall mark and peer marking sheets (anonymously) are provided to the student.

7.9.4 Assessment of Participation:

Assessment of participation may be used to develop in students the orientation and ability to engage in, and contribute to, group learning processes such as those involved in tutorials, seminars, laboratories and workshops. A mechanism which can be used:

There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to engage publicly in certain activities. This does not mean that such activities should not be required if they are relevant to the achievement of the unit objectives. However, Unit Coordinators must be sensitive to differences such as those associated with culture and gender. They must provide clear criteria by which participation in those activities will be judged. The marking of participation may often involve elements of peer and self assessment. A mechanism which can be used:

7.9.4.1 Marking participation:

The learning objectives for the tutorials, seminars, laboratories and workshops are discussed by the staff and students. The Unit Coordinator/tutor provides the criteria by which participation will be judged, for example, task focus/level of engagement with task, quality of analysis of arguments, capacity to listen, responsiveness to feedback/criticism, risk-taking behaviour. The mark awarded for participation is accompanied by feedback on the criteria.

8. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STUDENTS AND STAFF:

8.1 Students have a right to:

8.1.1 Be provided with advice on the following:

• The University policy on the use of non-discriminatory language.

• Formal procedures to be followed when a variation is sought from the assessment requirements for the unit on the basis of conscientious objection.

• How to request explanations of grades allocated for work completed during the standard teaching period, and of final grades and appeal procedures.

Units available in the flexible format will have this information automatically generated on the Unit page.

8.1.2 Clearly written unit learning objectives which are written as outcomes statements.

8.1.3 Assessment that measures achievement of the learning objectives specified for each unit.

8.1.4 Reasonable access to resources (e.g. library databases), which will support them in achieving the assessment.

8.1.5 Assessment methods that allow them to demonstrate the level of achievement in unit objectives.

8.1.6 Information regarding assessment (type, teacher expectations, marking criteria, assessment component percentage, other special features) at the beginning of each unit.

8.1.7 Be informed well in advance (specify) regarding assessment dates, or venue and any changes to assessment dates, or venue.

8.1.8 Fair assessment.

8.1.9 View and discuss assessment results with a member of teaching staff at previously advised specified times.

8.1.10 Receive results for assessment tasks conducted within a standard teaching period prior to final assessment tasks and within sufficient time to modify learning approaches if needed.

8.1.11 Appeal grades awarded through the specified, publicly available processes.

8.1.12 A range of assessment strategies capable of suiting a range of differing learning styles throughout their enrolled course.

8.1.13 Confidentiality of assessment grades.

8.1.14 Request a re-mark subject to the appropriate conditions and procedures.

8.2 Students have the responsibility to:

8.2.1 Seek all information available well before assessments are due – this may be available online, or in printed material specified for the course.

8.2.2 Submit assessed work by the due date and in the specified process.

8.2.3 Work in a manner that does not constitute misconduct, dishonesty or plagiarism.

8.2.4 Behave in a manner which does not interfere with other student’s rights.

8.2.5 Seek advice and feedback at times specified by the Unit Co-ordinator.

8.2.6 Not undertake spurious appeals or ambit claims over assessment grades.

8.3 Teaching Staff have the right to:

8.3.1 Determine the most appropriate method and frequency of assessment for their unit, providing it complies with the Assessment Policy.

8.3.2 Specify times when they will be available for student consultation regarding assessment results and feedback.

8.3.3 Determine the academic standards specified in objectives and marking schedules.

8.3.4 Determine the learning objectives and the level of achievement required to successfully complete assessments tasks.

8.4 Teaching Staff have the responsibility to:

8.4.1 Comply with the Assessment Policy.

8.4.2 Provide students with clear statements of assessment methods, due dates, assessment weighting and teacher expectations regarding standards and the process for requesting a re-mark prior to the commencement of the teaching.

8.4.3 Inform all enrolled students in writing if there is an unavoidable change in assessment or due date. This advice should be given as soon as practicable following the change and students should acknowledge receipt of that advice.

8.4.4 Provide appropriate strategies to assess whether a student has achieved the stated learning objectives.

8.4.5 Mark assessed work conducted within the designated teaching period within a time frame that allows students to modify learning strategies if necessary.

8.4.6 Mark work fairly.

8.4.7 Maintain confidentiality of students' submitted work and grades.

8.4.8 Have an understanding of assessment strategies used in other likely concurrently enrolled units.

8.4.9 Where a piece of work is assessed by multiple staff, inform such staff of outcomes needed, academic standards and coordinator expectations.

8.4.10 Where a piece of work is assessed by multiple staff, monitor and adjust marks if necessary to ensure equivalence of marking standards.

8.4.11 Provide grades and marks on assessed work.

8.4.12 Structure unit assessment and feedback so students obtain benefit from feedback on their performance. In short period or non-standard units this may require special attention.

8.4.13 Maintain clear records of student grades and outcomes and provide these to the appropriate University offices in the format and by the dates required.

9. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO STUDENTS ON ASSESSMENT AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:

9.1 Written Advice on Assessment Processes:

By no later than the beginning of the designated teaching period, the Unit Co-ordinator must provide students with a statement of the assessment requirements, including assessment methods and weighting. Where assessment is to be negotiated with individual students, this must be stated in the initial description of the unit and the negotiated assessment provided in writing by no later than the second week of semester or pro rata for units of shorter or longer duration. This statement will form part of the (print and/or online) unit materials. Any unavoidable changes from requirements outlined in this statement, (e.g. assessment venue, due date or exemptions from the Assessment Policy) requires that all students must receive written notification (mail or email) of the changes.

The statement on assessment in the Unit Information and Learning Guide must provide information on:

9.1.1 Unit objectives.

9.1.2 The type and nature of each assessment component including tasks and topics, word limits and weightings. Where there is provision for some

negotiation of assessment tasks the procedures for this negotiation should be clearly stated.

9.1.3 The criteria for the assessment of each component including any requirements regarding presentation.

9.1.4 The way in which grades are to be determined in the unit.

9.1.5 If there is a possibility of moderation this should be made clear together with the rationale (e.g. to ensure equity of marking by different tutors on the same unit and/or to ensure consistency across examinations on different offerings of a unit). If an exemption to use scaling of marks has been approved by Academic Council, a clear written explanation of the pedagogical rationale for this and the manner in which it is to be applied should be provided to students.

9.1.6 Due dates for assignments and submission related information including where they should be lodged, clear Procedures for electronic submission, and the responsibility of students to keep a copy of all assignments handed in for assessment.

9.1.7 The dates of any assessable tasks which have to be carried out in class.

9.1.8 Rules governing the formation and functioning of groups where used for assessment, mechanisms for determining the contributions of individuals to group projects and the distribution of marks amongst group members.

9.1.9 The unit policy with respect to resubmissions, extensions and late submission. This should include the procedures for obtaining extensions, if any, and any penalties for late submission, with or without extensions.

Students registered under a Special Program will be granted an extension for submission of assessment items and may be exempted from specified attendance requirements on the basis of approved compulsory commitments related to these programs under the following circumstances:

§ Supporting documentation is provided from the relevant organisation to verify approved compulsory commitments.

§ Submission of the written request to the Liaison Officer Special Programs, is made prior to the due date and with sufficient time for alternative arrangements to be considered.

9.1.10 Rules governing any attendance requirements including which sessions must be attended, how many may be missed without failing the unit, what opportunities there are for ‘making up’ missed classes and in what circumstances (e.g. illness, child care and work commitments, approved commitments for students registered under Special Programs), penalties for non-attendance and procedures for seeking variations on these requirements.

The Unit Co-ordinator will give due consideration to the student’s length of absence in determining any exemption. The Unit Co-ordinator should, in the first instance, consider opportunities for ‘making up’ missed classes. Further consideration should be given to assessing the student under the same criteria as an External student, prior to providing any alternative assessment methods.

9.1.11 In units operating under the Workplace Learning Policy there must be a clear statement of what workplace activities will be assessed; how they will be assessed, and what component of the final grade they will provide. In addition, when Professional Behaviours in the workplace are to be assessable the student must be provided with a document explaining the relevant specified behaviours and standards.

9.1.12 The details of any Assessment exemptions approved by the President of Academic Council which pertain to the Unit.

9.2 Academic Integrity:

Academic integrity is an adherence to five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in all work. Academic integrity is fundamental to the operation of all scholarship, whether it be original research or undergraduate assignments. It ensures that proper credit is given to those who do the work and that their intellectual contribution is acknowledged. It ensures that proper evaluation and feedback of performance can be given and finally it buttresses the worth and reputation of academic awards on the basis they have been honestly earned. Murdoch University regards academic integrity as a fundamental value of student learning. It requires all students enrolled in the University to adhere to academic integrity in fulfilling each assessment task.

Unit Co-ordinators must include in the University Information and Learning Guide a statement urging students to adhere to academic integrity in all assessment tasks of the unit.

9.3 Plagiarism and Collusion:

Ethical assessment is Murdoch’s objective and dishonesty will not be tolerated.

Plagiarism and collusion are defined as including any of the following five types of behaviour and apply to work in any medium (for example, written or audio text, film production, computer programs, etc):

1 Inappropriate/inadequate acknowledgement

Material copied word for word which is acknowledged as paraphrased but should have been in quotation marks, or material paraphrased without appropriate acknowledgement of its source.

2 Collusion Material produced in concert, collectively or in collaboration with others and giving the false impression that the work is the sole output of the student submitting it for assessment.

3 Verbatim copying Material copied word for word or exactly duplicated without any acknowledgement of the source.

4 Ghost writing Assignment written by third party and represented by student as her or his own work.

5 Purloining Material copied from another student's assignment or work without that person's knowledge.

9.4 Cheating in Supervised Assessment:

It is expected that students will act honestly during examination activities. Cheating may include, but not be limited to, material brought in contrary to instructions, copying from another student’s work, seeking outside assistance through the use of electronic device. The Penalties for Academic Misconduct are included in the Student Discipline Regulations and Student Discipline Procedure.

10. GUIDE FOR UNIT QUALITY:

The Guide for Unit Quality provides information to assist with the development of units.

11. GRADING SYSTEM:

11.1 System of Letter Grades:

Final Grades for units which award grades (most Murdoch units):

HD High Distinction

D Distinction

C Credit

P Pass

N Fail

DNS Fail, the student failed to participate in assessment components that had a combined weighting of 50% or more of the final mark.

Final Grades for units which only award pass/fail:

UP Ungraded pass

N Fail

DNS Fail, the student failed to participate in assessment components that had a combined weighting of 50% or more of the final mark.

Interim grades:

G Good standing

NA Not available

Q Deferred Assessment

SA Supplementary Assignment

SX Supplementary Exam

11.2 Meaning of Letter Grades:

Final letter grades shall reflect the extent to which students have achieved the unit objectives.

High Distinction (HD)

Exceptional performance indicating complete and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter; genuine mastery of relevant skills; demonstration of an extremely high level of interpretative and analytical ability and intellectual initiative; and achievement of all major and minor objectives of the unit.

Distinction (D)

Excellent performance indicating a very high level of understanding of the subject matter; development of relevant skills to a very high level; demonstration of a very

high level of interpretive and analytical ability and intellectual initiative; and achievement of all major and minor objectives of the unit.

Credit (C)

Good performance indicating a high level of understanding of subject matter; development of relevant skills to a high level; demonstration of a high level of interpretive and analytical ability and achievement of all major objectives of the unit; some minor objectives may not be fully achieved.

Pass (P)

Satisfactory performance indicating an adequate understanding of most of the basic subject matter; partial development of relevant skills; adequate interpretive and analytical ability and achievement of all major objectives of the unit; some minor objectives may not be achieved.

Fail (N)

Unsatisfactory performance indicating an inadequate understanding of the basic subject matter; failure to develop relevant skills; insufficient evidence of interpretive and analytical ability; and failure to achieve major and minor objectives of the unit.

Failure to Submit (DNS)

The student failed to participate in assessment components that had a combined weighting of 50% or more of the final mark. This grade is considered the equivalent of a Fail (N) grade for the purposes of assessment of academic progress.

Ungraded Pass (UP)

Successful completion of a unit assessed on a pass/fail basis, indicating satisfactory understanding of subject matter; satisfactory development of relevant skills; satisfactory interpretive and analytical ability and achievement in all major objectives of the unit.

When a unit is designated pass/fail, all students passing the unit are to be awarded a UP. Where a unit is not designated a pass/fail, no student is to receive a UP grade.

UPs are most likely to be awarded in the following types of units: research studies units, units where students spend a semester in another country, study abroad units, work placement units, the units of other universities and equity units.

11.3 Distribution of Marks:

The University does not allow marks and grades to be distributed to fit a particular predetermined range (‘fitting the bell curve’ or ‘scaling’). Exemption from this must be sought from Academic Council and must be based on a clear pedagogical rationale.

Grades should have comparable meanings in terms of broadly defined levels of achievement across the University. Therefore, the process of determining final grades will generally have both criterion and normative aspects to it (See ‘Section 4.7 Criterion and Norm-referenced Assessment’ for an explanation of these terms). While the University does not maintain a bell curve or grade range distribution policy, larger Part 1 undergraduate units might typically expect to award approximately one third distinction passes (HD and D), of which not more than half should be at the upper level. Variation around this is to be expected, however, with the degree of variation a function of the nature of the unit, the number of students and the calibre of the students. Boards of Examiners should monitor the overall grade distribution at the level of the School to ensure broad comparability between teaching periods and across the University.

11.4 Determination of Grades from Components/Marks:

Component marks shall be combined in a way that is consistent with the weightings assigned to the components. Final grades awarded shall maintain the relativities between final marks (that is, a student with a higher cumulative mark than another student should not be awarded a lower grade, and two students who receive the same final mark should be awarded the same grade).

University grades are awarded as follows:

Grade Mark

HD High Distinction 80 - 100%

D Distinction 70 - 79%

C Credit 60 - 69%

P Pass 50 - 59%

UP Ungraded Pass 50% or above

N Fail Below 50%

DNS Fail Fail, the student failed to participate in assessment components that had a combined weighting of 50% or more of the final mark.

SA Supplementary Assessment

45 – 49%* *The award of the grade of SA shall be at the discretion of the Unit Coordinator except where clause 11.8 applies.

SX Supplementary Exam

45 – 49%*

*The award of the grade of SA or SX shall be at the discretion of the Unit Coordinator except where Clause 11.8 applies.

The University requires the use of these percentage ranges to determine the grade. Academic transcripts will include both the grade and final mark for each student.

Final numerical marks are to be presented as a whole number (0.5 and above up, 0.49 and below down). Individual assessment components should not be rounded while summing to the final mark.

11.5 Moderation:

11.5.1 What is moderation and when should it occur?

Moderation is a quality assurance strategy directed at ensuring the reliability and validity of assessment. It is a process of independently evaluating whether there is consistency in the standard of marking being applied across particular assessment components or whether significant deviations have occurred from some previously defined standard. In a Murdoch context, it is normally applied in situations where there is potential for the validity of assessment results to be compromised, or extra reassurance on the validity of assessment outcomes is required. These

situations can include: (1) where different markers are marking the same assessment components for different groups of students (e.g. tutorial or demonstration groups): (2) where a Board of Examiners or the School Dean identifies issues with a unit that would benefit from moderation; (3) where an educational partner organisation teaches Murdoch students enrolled in Murdoch units; and (4) where an educational partner organisation uses Murdoch Intellectual Property in teaching its own units. However, the details of the moderation process may vary with each situation. Moderation must occur in situations (3) and (4) as part of the University’s policy for educational partnerships. In situations 1 and 2 the requirement for moderation is at the discretion of the School Dean and/or the Board of Examiners.

11.5.2 What are the prerequisites for moderation?

Effective moderation requires: (1) that the objectives of the assessment component, and the criteria on which marks will be awarded, are explicit and well justified, and are well explained to both students and markers; (2) that clear, well-understood marking guides are used; and (3) that there is a mutually agreed and timely process of feedback to ensure that corrections to marking strategies or levels of assessment (i.e. “soft” versus “hard” marking) can be appropriately applied. Under these circumstances, it is possible to analyse how significant inconsistencies or deviations from a standard arise, and to correct errors before students are misled on their performance by inappropriate, inadequate or missing feedback.

11.5.3 What is the scope of moderation?

Where moderation is invoked for a unit it must apply to each significant assessment component that falls within the criteria requiring moderation. The sample size of assessment submissions moderated for each assessment component must be sufficient to establish whether significant issues or deviations have occurred in the marking strategy applied by the original markers. At Murdoch this will generally be ten scripts or 10% of the submissions per assessment component; whichever is the larger number.

11.5.4 Who performs moderation and how do they do it?

The moderation process must involve a person other than the original marker assessing the way marks have been awarded for a representative sample of student submissions. The person selected for this role must have assessment competency in that their skills base should be such that they are competent to detect errors, discrepancies or ineptitude in the marking process of a particular unit. The moderation may involve a simple scrutiny of marks awarded, and the criteria used, without an actual re-mark; a re-mark informed by the marks awarded by and/or the comments of the original marker; or a “double blind” re-mark in which the original marks awarded and comments are not available to the second marker. In all cases, the assessment must be made using a marking guide. The time taken for these different strategies will differ, and each will be appropriate under different circumstances. Where there is an initial presumption of marking problems, or a student has successfully made a case for a re-mark, the blind re-mark is most appropriate; where there is simply a monitoring requirement, for example in the case of educational partners teaching Murdoch units, or using Murdoch IP, scrutiny of marks awarded or an informed re-mark will suffice. For moderation requirements in Educational Partnerships (e.g. offshore partnerships) double blind re-marks will not be used.

11.5.5 What must be done if moderation reveals a problem?

Where moderation indicates a problem, it is crucial that an investigation is initiated as soon as possible to establish that a discrepancy exists and determine if the issue is one of marking strategy or process, or the issue is one of student learning. Where the moderation affects a unit not run through an educational partnership, the Unit Coordinator should communicate as soon as possible with the marker or markers affected. Where an educational partnership is involved, the School Dean, through liaison with the Office of Educational Partnerships, should contact the appropriate person in the partner organisation to initiate discussion. The Unit Coordinator must satisfy themselves, after discussion with the marker or markers, that the cause of the problem has been corrected and the issue will not be repeated. If, in the opinion of the Unit Coordinator, the issue will have a substantial effect on student grades, then corrections to the marks must be initiated as soon as possible, either by systematic corrections following the marking guide or by a re-mark. Where an educational partnership is involved and the students are enrolled in a Murdoch Unit, the Unit Coordinator must consult with the School Dean who has the authority to require a total re-mark by an educational partner. Similarly where Murdoch IP is used in units belonging to an educational partner, the School Dean may ask the partner organisation for a re-mark.

11.5.6 Who has responsibility for moderation?

Ultimate responsibility for ensuring that moderation occurs in units where it is required lies with the School Dean who has the primary responsibility for the quality of academic offerings within the School. Operational responsibility will generally devolve to the Unit Coordinator, unless the Unit Coordinator is the single teacher and marker in the unit. The selection of markers who will moderate within a unit must be approved by the School Dean.

11.5.7 What are the moderation requirements of Educational Partnership Agreements?

For the University’s offshore educational partnerships, the normal model is that assignments are marked by staff of the partner institution and moderated by Murdoch staff, whilst examinations are marked by Murdoch staff. However, the moderation requirements of some educational partnership agreements may differ from this standard. It is the responsibility of both School Deans and Unit Coordinators to make themselves aware, through the Office of Educational Partnerships, of what partnership agreements apply to the units under their management and the moderation requirements of each partnership. It is also the responsibility of School Deans to ensure that Unit Coordinators (and other School Deans where applicable) of units which are part of the course offerings from their school are informed of when a unit is required to be mounted as part of an educational partnership, so that the moderation requirements can be planned in a timely fashion.

11.5.8 Adjustment of tutorial group means is not moderation:

Simple adjustment of tutorial group means (sometimes incorrectly referred to as “scaling”) occurs when comparison of marks across tutorial or demonstrator student groups within a unit reveals substantial differences in the severity of marking between different tutors or demonstrators over several assessment components. At the discretion of the Unit Coordinator, the marks are retrospectively adjusted to bring the group means into line. Adjustment of tutorial group means is not moderation, since it does not involve any systematic ongoing sampling for re-marking or scrutiny of individual marks awarded. Adjustment of tutorial group means should only

be used where there is clear evidence of a substantial discrepancy in group means (e.g. a range of 25% or greater across groups with substantial numbers), where there is no evidence that this difference arises from differences in student ability or engagement (i.e. all groups appear to be equivalent) and where the overall correction applied for each assessment task does not move any individual student’s overall score for the unit by more than 5% (e.g. moves the total score reported on the final assessment sheet from 60% to 65%). The possible use of adjustment of tutorial group means in the unit must also be flagged to students by an appropriate statement in the assessment section of the Unit Information and Learning Guide. Systematic use of thoroughly prepared marking guides and thorough induction into the unit assessment strategy for each tutor or demonstrator should substantially reduce the need for adjustment of tutorial group means.

11.6 Comparability of Marking across Tutors:

Unit Co-ordinators must take steps to ensure that marks awarded by tutors are equitable and that the need for adjustment of tutorial group means is minimised.

Unit Co-ordinators shall provide tutors with marking guides and, where appropriate, solution lists. Where possible, they should also meet with tutors to consider marking techniques to ensure consistency in the allocation of marks by different tutors. In particular, the link between numerical marks and final grades, the meaning of those grades, and the broad distribution anticipated should be discussed carefully with tutors prior to any marking taking place. The purpose should be to minimise or to remove inconsistencies between tutors on the same unit, or inconsistencies from offering to offering of the same unit.

11.7 Requirement to Attempt and Submit all Assessment Items:

The University requires multiple points of assessment and a range of assessment methods so that differing student learning styles and circumstances can be accommodated. Students should be able to demonstrate achievement of the units learning objectives through a range of assessment techniques that address differing learning styles.

Where it is necessary in terms of the overall design of the unit, Unit Coordinators may choose to require students to attempt and submit (but not necessarily pass) all assessment items (including the final exam) in order to be considered for a passing grade in the unit. Where Unit Coordinators choose to implement this requirement, they must clearly state this requirement in the Unit Information and Learning Guide, together with the rationale for the requirement and a clearly stated policy that provides for discretion to be exercised where a student is unable to comply.

11.8 A Mandatory Pass or Minimum Mark is Required in an Assessment Component to Pass the Unit:

There may be circumstances where the Unit Co-ordinator considers it necessary that students be required to pass one or all assessment component of a unit (eg professional skills development, clinical practice with a health and safety component) in order to pass the unit. These should be minimised as such an approach diminishes the formative benefit of assessment for students and does not accommodate student learning styles adequately. A clear explanation must be provided in the unit guide to students as to the pedagogical justification for the use of such components. However, many small assessment components with a mandatory pass requirement represent a multiple hazard to students and fail to flag by their assessment weighting their significance in the formation of the students’ required skill sets. As such, any component requiring a mandatory pass must be at least 20% of the total assessment weighting of the unit. Individual components may be grouped together to achieve the 20%. Where a student

achieves a mark of 50% or greater overall in the unit assessment, but fails because they do not achieve a pass or required minimum mark in one or more mandatory pass components, they must be awarded supplementary assessment, which shall normally be directed toward the area in which they have failed.

11.9 Re-marking:

11.9.1 Students have the right to request an explanation about the mark they received on any assessment activity they have completed during the relevant teaching period. Where the student believes the explanation is unsatisfactory or the mark has been arrived at incorrectly, they may request a re-mark of the work.

11.9.2 Initially, students should discuss any concerns with the person who marked the work. If the student is still dissatisfied and feels there are grounds for requesting that an assignment be re-marked, they should then discuss the matter with the Unit Coordinator who may arrange a re-mark and select the person to undertake the re-mark. If a re-mark is not awarded, and the student is still dissatisfied, the student may write to the School Dean requesting, and providing justification for, a re-mark in which case the School Dean will decide if a re-mark is warranted and will select the person to undertake the re-mark. Students must formally initiate a re-mark within ten working days of when the marked work was received and prior to the deadline for appeals against unit results (refer to Student Appeals Policy). A re-mark should be undertaken on a clean copy of the assignment as submitted.

11.9.3 Grounds for requesting a re-mark include:

• the mark for the assessment activity was not based on the published marking guidelines;

• demonstrated bias affecting the assessment activity; and

• demonstrated wrong advice from staff teaching the unit.

11.9.4 The following are not valid grounds for a re-mark:

• The objectives of the unit.

• The assessment methods approved for the unit.

• The standard required to achieve a particular mark in the unit or assessment activity.

• A study overload.

• Personal and medical problems, which normally should be dealt with by deferred assessment.

• Financial implications of not passing the unit.

• Grades received by the student in other units or other assessment activities.

• The amount of work the student has done.

• A penalty imposed for plagiarism in accordance with University Policies.

• The need for additional marks to achieve a particular grade.

• A penalty imposed for late submission in accordance with advice published in the Unit Information and Learning Guide.

11.9.5 For students who request a re-mark, the re-marked result will be the officially recorded result for that assessment activity, regardless of whether it is higher or lower than the original mark. Any piece of work can only be re-marked once.

11.10 Retaking a Unit or Component:

It has been the practice of some Unit Co-ordinators, where a student has previously failed a unit, and has retaken it, to ‘carry-over’ the student’s marks in assessment components from the previous attempt and apply them to the current attempt. This creates issues of equity, unit accountability, and data security. In addition, it can be held that such a strategy encourages retaking students to engage less with the unit on their second attempt, and adds to the risk of a second failure. Consequently, the ‘carry-over’ of assessment components in these circumstances is not allowed, except in the case of specialised, large, multi-component units such as those used by, for example, the final years of study in Applied Veterinary Medicine, which effectively sit outside the University’s standardised unit system. In these circumstances, secure process and the operation of Boards of Examiners must be used to oversee the transfer of previous assessment data and its integration into the assessment of the current unit enrolment.

12. REPORTING OF RESULTS:

12.1 Unit Co-ordinators’ Responsibilities: 12.1.1 Unit Coordinators are responsible for reporting grades and marks to the

Exams, Results and Graduations Office where the results will be loaded on the student record system and the hard copy and breakdown of marks stored. Staff teaching the unit must provide student results to the Unit Coordinator in sufficient time for them to meet the deadline for this process.

12.1.2 If a Unit Coordinator determines that a supplementary assessment is appropriate, the award of the supplementary assessment can only be approved at the Board of Examiners. No supplementary assessment can be undertaken prior to approval. The Unit Coordinator will advise students in writing of supplementary assessment arrangements no later than three working days after the the Board of Examiners. All supplementary assessment results must be submitted by the published deadline.

12.1.3 After the completion of the unit, Unit Co-ordinators must lodge in the Exams, Results and Graduations Office details of the marks and grade obtained by each student in each assessable component of the unit, and of the weighting attached to each component together with explanations of any variations from the requirements of Section 11.4 Determination of Grades from Components. These records are important for assessment appeals.

12.1.4 Unit results must not be released informally to students by Unit Co-ordinators or any other staff member in the University as they are subject to change by the Board of Examiners. When finalised, results are available only to individual students through the online portal facility. Staff should not be responsible for the assessment of student(s) with whom they have, or have had, a family, personal or other significant relationship.

12.2 Feedback to Students about Performance in Units:

Students are entitled to see their results in all assessment components of their unit, including raw marks for components and for the unit overall. Students may inspect their marked examination scripts and discuss the marking with the Unit Coordinator, or nominee, within fourteen days of the posting of results. Unit Coordinators may require reasonable notice or set aside specified times for this. Where a Unit Co-ordinator is away from campus in the two weeks following the posting of results, another member of academic staff must be designated to handle inquiries and be provided with detailed assessment information to facilitate this.

Unit Co-ordinators must retain examination scripts until the end of the following appropriate standard teaching period.

12.3 Meaning of Interim Grades:

Students may be given interim grades for a variety of reasons as indicated below.

12.3.1 A result of good standing (G) should be reported only at the end of the academic year where all results in that enrolment option are not due to be completed until the end of the first or second semester of the following year.

12.3.2 A result of not available (NA) should be reported only where: a delay is caused by the unavoidable absence of the Unit Co-ordinator; where an examination script has yet to be received by the University; where the School Dean has approved assessment in that unit taking place after the academic period of that unit; where the final grade is under consideration due to disciplinary action or administrative encumbrance; where Academic Council has approved assessment in that unit taking place after the assessment period for that standard teaching period, including where the repeat of a competency component (e.g. involving practical work or a placement) cannot reasonably be arranged within the standard teaching period.

12.3.3 Where multiple points and methods of assessment are the expectation, it is considered that the student is given the best opportunity to demonstrate achievement of learning objectives. A result of supplementary assessment (SA or SX) may be reported where the student has a borderline fail mark (45 - 49%) in the unit, and the Unit Co-ordinator is willing to arrange extra work and/or an examination to give the student a further opportunity to demonstrate achievement of the unit objectives:

• Grade – SA: to be used where supplementary assessment has been awarded and does not include an exam to be administered by Exams, Results and Graduations within the Office of Student Life and Learning.

• Grade – SX: to be used where the supplementary assessment awarded includes an exam to be administered by the Exams, Results and Graduations within the Office of Student Life and Learning.

The Unit Co-ordinator has the sole discretion in determining whether a supplementary assessment is to be given. It is not an automatic right of the student. However, supplementary assessment should normally be given where the Unit Co-ordinator believes the student has a reasonable probability of achieving a pass in the unit by this mechanism. Unit Co-ordinators are required to apply the supplementary assessment discretion in an equitable way for all students in the unit and to keep written records to justify the basis of their selection of students for supplementary assessment. Where the student has achieved over 50% in the unit and a fail is awarded because the student has failed one or more mandatory pass components supplementary assessment must be awarded and shall normally be directed towards the area in which the student has failed. Where a Unit Co-ordinator reports a grade of SA or SX, they must advise students in writing of supplementary assessment arrangements within three working days of the Board of Examiners. The only grades available after supplementary assessment are a P or N. An ungraded pass is not available. If a pass, the percentage mark recorded will be 50. If a fail, the percentage mark recorded will be 49 or a composite mark for the unit (whichever is less).

12.3.4 A result of deferred assessment (Q) shall be reported only where deferred assessment has been approved in accordance with clause 16 of this document.

12.4 Reporting of Final Grades to Replace Interim Grades:

Where a result of S, Q or NA has been reported, the Unit Co-ordinator shall report a final grade no later than six weeks after the end of the assessment period. For those units where the additional work required of the student includes a substantial component of practical work or placement which cannot be arranged by the university until after this deadline, the deadline may be extended to the end of the appropriate standard teaching period immediately following the initial semester of enrolment.

12.5 Reports to Students on Results in Units:

A notice of results is published on the MyInfo Site at the end of each standard teaching period. The notice published after the second semester of each year includes a cumulative record of the results of units taken in that year and in previous years.

12.6 Reports to Students on Performance on Honours and Industry Practicums and Work Placements:

Upon completion of the examination process, honours students shall be provided with the full report of their examiners, except for any confidential attachment which the examiner may have attached to the report (though the University cannot give an absolute guarantee of confidentiality for this under Freedom of Information legislation). The reports of external supervisors involved in industry practicums and work place units should be treated likewise.

13. SUBMISSION AND RECEIPT OF ASSIGNMENTS:

13.1 Students’ Responsibilities:

Students are responsible for submission of their assignments as outlined in the Unit Information and Learning Guide or as determined by the School. Students are required to maintain a copy of all submitted work until at least the expiration of the appeal period.

13.2 Unit Co-ordinators’ Responsibilities:

Unit Co-ordinators are responsible for ensuring that provision is made for all assessment work to be submitted and returned to students in a secure and confidential manner.

In the case of end-of-teaching period exams, Unit Co-ordinators shall allow students to view their assessed work at a mutually convenient time and place, but are not required to provide a copy to students except where requested by students who have reasonable circumstances (such as studying externally, offshore or at a different campus) for being unable to view the original copy.

13.3 Electronic Receipt of Assignments:

Unit Co-ordinators should provide students with clear advice on the process to be used for receiving and returning assignments. This should include who has responsibility for ensuring that incoming and outgoing assignments are readable and appropriately formatted and how arrival and return of assignments is acknowledged and any other security measures. Students submitting assignments electronically must do it in accordance with the Electronic Assignment Submission and Marking Policy.

Each School must make available to students a standard cover sheet. Students are required to submit a completed copy of the cover sheet with each assignment. Schools must have a process for recording receipt of each submitted assignment.

13.4 Late Submission of Assignments:

Units should have a clear and consistent policy about the granting of extensions and the consequences of late submission, with and without extensions, and this must be made available to students in the Unit Information and Learning Guide. This Policy should apply across the whole unit and not vary from tutor to tutor. The

expectation should be that assignment dates will be adhered to unless students receive an extension. If a student submits an assignment after the due date, without an extension being granted, they should expect the work to be marked down. Penalties may also apply when an extension is granted, in which case the Unit Co-ordinator/Tutor should make the student aware of any penalties when granting the extension.

13.5 Plagiarism Detection:

Students are expected to produce assignments consistent with Murdoch University's academic integrity values. Prior to assignment submission, opportunities should be made available for students to submit an electronic copy of their assignment to the University's plagiarism detection software in order to identify any potential plagiarism. Unit Coordinators must inform students for which assignments they will use the University's plagiarism detection software and advise students on how to learn to use that software. Unit Co-ordinators reserve the right to submit any assignments to the University's plagiarism detection software if they suspect plagiarism.

Unit Co-ordinators must advise students that if required they must be able to provide assignments in an electronic format which is able to be checked through the University's plagiarism detection software.

14 EXAMINATION RULES FOR EXAMINATIONS HELD DURING THE FORMAL UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION PERIOD

This section has been deleted. Please refer to Rules for Conduct of Examinations.

15. EXAMINATION RULES FOR EXAMINATIONS NOT HELD IN THE FORMAL UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION PERIOD

This section has been deleted. Please refer to Rules for Conduct of Examinations.

16. DEFERRED ASSESSMENT:

16.1 A student may be granted a deferral if a serious illness or other exceptional circumstances prevented them from completing a piece of assessment work or an examination due in the last teaching week or later. Students registered under one or more of the approved Special Programs may also be eligible for deferred assessment subject to provision of supporting documentation establishing reasons related to approved compulsory commitments. The following conditions apply:

• It must be possible for the student to pass the unit;

• An application must be submitted no later than the last week of the teaching period or, in the case of an examination in the assessment period, within three University working days of the date of the examination. Any application shall be in writing addressed to the Office of Student Life and Learning and shall include a statement of the reasons for seeking deferment, together with independent supporting evidence including a medical certificate if the application is based on medical grounds;

• Deferred assessment shall not be approved:

1. For illness or other circumstances occurring prior to the census date for the unit. Circumstances such as these should be dealt with by an extension from the Unit Co-ordinator.

2. For circumstances occurring in the period after the census date and prior to the late withdrawal date and not continuing after then. In these circumstances a student may be eligible for a retrospective withdrawal.

3. If the student has sat the examination or submitted the assessment work.

4. If the student did not sit an examination because they misread the timetable, forgot the examination, or slept in.

5. Where the student cannot attend the examination because it is during their working hours, unless it can be shown the employer has refused them leave.

16.2 A student will be advised of the outcome of their application by the Office of Student Services as soon as possible, but this might not always be before the assessment work is due. If approved the advice will include the details of the deferral. For exams, this will advise the student to access the Deferred Exams Timetable when available on the Student Life and Learning website for deferred exam details. For other assessments, it will detail the requirements and new due dates. If denied the advice will include the reasons the application was denied. A student may appeal to the Chair of the Student Appeals Committee against denial of an application within five University working days of the date of the advice notifying denial of the application if the criteria listed in Section 10.4 of the Student Appeals Policy are met.

16.3 Deferrals can normally be approved for up to six weeks after the end of the standard and non-standard teaching period. In extreme cases, where the original exceptional circumstances have not abated (eg a student with a serious illness who has not recovered sufficiently by the date set for the deferred assessment), a deferral may be granted for a longer period up to the end of the next semester or trimester teaching period as appropriate. Otherwise where the assessment cannot be completed within six weeks, the student may be eligible to be considered for a retrospective withdrawal.

16.4 The Unit Co-ordinator is required to report a result within six weeks after the end of the standard or non standard teaching period (or eight weeks in the case of second semester). The timing of reporting of results of a deferred assessment may be at any stage within six weeks after the end of the assessment period (or eight weeks for semester 2 units) as determined by the Unit Co-ordinator. Where the deferral is of assessment work which makes the arrangement of the additional work required impractical within this period, the deferral may be extended up to the end of the next equivalent teaching period. If a deferred examination is to be administered by the Office of Student Life and Learning, the examination must be held during the supplementary/deferred examinations period scheduled by the Office of Student Life and Learning.

16.5 Deferred assessment is not normally available for units in which the student has been granted supplementary assessment. Under exceptional circumstances a student may apply to their Unit Co-ordinator to change the date of their supplementary assessment. In deciding on a change, the Unit Co-ordinator will be guided by the rules for deferred assessment in Clause 16.1 above.

16.6 If a student is not eligible for a deferred assessment or was awarded it and could not complete it, they may be eligible for retrospective withdrawal as per Coursework Regulation 1.22(3).

17. GRIEVANCES AND APPEALS OF RESULTS:

17.2 Grievance Process

17.3 Appeals Against Unit Results Refer to Student Appeals Policy

18. DISHONESTY IN ASSESSMENT:

Information regarding Academic Misconduct can be found in the Student Discipline Regulations and Student Discipline Procedure.

Supporting Procedures:

Learning and Teaching Committee is authorised to approve the supporting procedures.

Supporting Guidelines:

There are no supporting guidelines.

Supporting Standards:

There are no supporting standards.

Performance Indicators:

There are no performance indicators.

Definitions:

The terms listed below are derived from the “Dictionary of Terms”. Please refer to the “Dictionary of Terms” in Policy and Procedure ManagerTM to ensure you are

referring to the latest version.

“Adjustment of Tutorial Group”

“Assessment Competency for Moderators”

“Assessment”

“Board of Examiners”

“Callista”

“Examination Centre”

“Examination Office”

“Examination Officer”

“Examination Period”

“Examination”

“Invigilator”

“Marking Guide”

“Moderation”

“Non Standard Teaching Period”

“Off-Campus Student”

“On-Campus Student”

“Post Graduate Student”

“Scaling”

“Solution List”

“Special Programs”

“Standard Teaching Period”

“Supervisor-in-Charge”

“Undergraduate Student”

“Unit Co-ordinator”

“Unit”

Related Documents:

Coursework Regulations Electronic Assignment Submission and Marking Policy Guidelines on Conscientious Objection in Teaching & Assessment Independent Study Contracts Policy

Non-Discriminatory Language Guidelines Postgraduate Research Degree Regulations Professional Behaviours Policy Quality Guide for Unit Materials Research Code of Conduct Student Appeals Policy Workplace Learning Policy

References:

There are no references.

Approval and Implementation:

Approval Authority: Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), Faculty Deans, School Deans

Responsible Officer(s): Secretary to Academic Council

Revision History:

Version Date Approved Effective Date (if later than ‘Date Approved’)

Next Review Date

Resolution No. (if applicable)

Amended 27/01/2011 Academic Council 23/02/2012 AC/23/2011

Approved 10/11/2010 Academic Council AC/171/2010(i)

Rescinded AC/61/2010

10/11/2010 Academic Council AC/171/2010(ii)

Amended 14/04/2010 Academic Council AC/61/2010

Amended 24/09/2009 Academic Council AC/133/2009

Amended 13/05/2009 Academic Council AC/78/2009

Amended 05/11/2008 Academic Council AC/155/2008

Amended 05/03/2008 Academic Council AC/37/2008

Amended 31/10/2007 Academic Council AC/140/2007 (i)

Amended 30/06/2007 Academic Council AC/76(i)/2007

Amended 20/07/2005 Academic Council AC/117/2005 Amended - Athlete Friendly

02/02/2005 Academic Council AC/16/2005

Examination Rules

17/09/2003 Academic Council AC/141/2003

Amended 17/09/2003 Academic Council AC/132/2003 (iii, iv & v)