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.

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: 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.

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.

Special circumstances: 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.

Special consideration: 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 as a result of students’ learning within the unit.

Policy

1. Assessment design

• Assessment tasks in Metavision Institute’s professionally accredited training courses 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. 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.

3. Submission of assessment items

3.1 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.

3.2 The penalty for late submission of assessment tasks is 5% of the assessment weighting per day.

3.3 An extension request may be made by completing the Assignment Extension Request form located on Sophia, and emailing it to extensions@metavision.edu.au on or before the due date for submission. Students will be notified of the outcome of the request within two business days.

Extensions are generally granted for one to two weeks. Approval of extension requests is at the discretion of Metavision Institute, and students and their academic teacher will be notified of the outcome by email within two business days.

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.

Extensions of longer than two weeks will only be granted under special circumstances.

4. Students with a disability

The Academic Director 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 Academic Director 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. If special consideration is granted, the student may be given an additional extension of time, or a supplementary assessment, or a conceded pass.

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.

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 a number of 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.
• Students may appeal an assessment grade by completing a Review of Grade Request Form, located on Sophia, and emailing it to admin@metavision.edu.au.

7. Approval of grades

The aggregation of student marks and grades is checked for errors for each unit by the Academic Director prior to submission to the Assessment 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 Academic Director to determine the assessment items that will be cross-marked internally and externally.

8.1 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.

8.2 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 is 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 is responsible for:

• 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 is responsible for the quality assurance of curriculum and oversight of the development of units and assessment tasks.

The Assessment Committee is a sub-committee of the Teaching and Learning Committee. The Assessment Committee 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.

The Academic Director is responsible for:

• Oversight of the assessment process in Metavision Institute’s professionally accredited training courses and assuring its integrity,
• Developing and implementing the external moderation schedule,
• Implementing consensus moderation in units with more than one assessor to ensure that marking and grading of assessment tasks is consistent,
• Conveying clear advice to students about the aims and objectives of the course, units and assessment requirements,
• Managing assessment within courses and units according to the accredited courses,
• Planning the timing of assessment tasks to avoid an imbalance of assessment load toward the end of semester across all units, and
• Complementing the advice given by academic teaching staff to provide a whole of course perspective.

Academic teaching staff members are responsible for:

• Ensuring that students are fully informed of unit learning outcomes and expectations, including assessment requirements, by the first week of the semester, and
• Providing timely feedback to students on their performance in assessment tasks.

Students are responsible for the preparation and timely submission of assessments through Metavision Institute’s learning management system, Sophia, by the published due date. Students are also responsible for applying for an extension on or before the due date, when extenuating or special circumstances affect their timely preparation of assessment tasks