ASSESSMENT

POLICY STATEMENT

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 assessment methods such as assignments, examinations, project work, seminar papers and tutorial participation. Assessment is a key part of the teaching and learning environment. Murdoch University values ethical behaviour and does not tolerate dishonesty.

DEFINITIONS

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 misconduct in research degrees are included in the Penalties for Dishonesty in Assessment (Appendix A).

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
	3.2.3	provide feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching.
3.3	For the University:
	3.3.1	provide evidence that students have achieved learning utcomes;
	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. TYPES OF ASSESSMENT

4.1	Diagnostic Assessment
4.2	Formative Assessment
4.3	Summative Assessment
4.4	Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment
4.5	Authentic Assessment
4.6	Program Assessment
4.7	Criterion and Norm-referenced Assessment

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 http://wwwtlc2.murdoch.edu.au/outcomes/src/bg/as/bgas1.html.

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 METHODS AND TIMING

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 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 the supervised component 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	Collaborative 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 grade. 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.
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 in, (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 B) should be used to develop and ensure equivalence. Various characteristics identified in the framework must be equivalent.
7.8	Advice on Group, Self and Peer Assessment and Assessment of Participation
	7.8.1	Group Work and Assessment 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.
	7.8.2	Management of Group Projects 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 Coordinator and tutors:
		7.8.2.1	To establish explicit procedures for group work which are transparent, equitable and contain proper processes of review.
		7.8.2.2	To manage the planning, development and implementation of processes and procedures for learning through group work.
	7.8.3	Assessment of Group Projects 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. The Assessment Policy requires that: if collaborative learning or teamwork is not a major stated objective of a regular unit then no more than 30% of the marks awarded in the unit should be for a group project. if collaborative learning or teamwork is a major stated objective of a regular unit then the group project may form up to 70% of the marks awarded but the allocation of a common portion of the mark allocated 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 of these restrictions do not apply. When ever 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.
		7.8.3.1	Shared Group Mark
		7.8.3.2	Group Contracts
		7.8.3.3	Peer Assessment of Contributions
		7.8.3.4	Individual Marks
	7.8.4	Self Assessment There may be differences to the extent to which students are prepared to self promote and Unit Coordinators 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:
		7.8.4.1	Self Marking
		7.8.4.2	Class Generated Criteria for Self Assessment
	7.8.5	Peer Assessment 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 other’s work. A mechanism which can be used:
		7.8.5.1	Peer Marking
	7.8.6	Assessment of Participation There may be differences in the extent to which students are prepared to engage publicly in certain activities associated with, for example, culture and gender. This does not mean that such activities should not be required if they are relevant to the achievement of the unit objectives. Unit Coordinators must be sensitive to such differences and 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:
		7.8.6.1	Marking Participation
	7.8.7	Timing of Assessment Feedback 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 assessment feedback must be timed to allow the student an appropriate period in which to improve this performance.

8. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STUDENTS AND STAFF

8.1	Rights of Students
8.2	Responsibilities of Students
8.3	Rights of Staff
8.4	Responsibilities of Staff

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 Coordinator 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 unit materials or published on the Unit Welcome Page. 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. 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.
	9.1.5	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.
	9.1.6	The dates of any assessable tasks which have to be carried out in class.
	9.1.7	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.
	9.1.8	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 enrolled under the Athlete Friendly University program will be granted an extension for submission of assessment items and may be exempted from specified attendance requirements on the basis of sporting related travel commitments under the following circumstances: Verification of the travel being for sporting purposes by the student’s approved sporting association; and Submission of the appropriate extension application form to the Off Campus Studies Co-ordinator, not later than 1 week prior to the initial submission date. Submission of the appropriate application form to the Office of Campus Studies Coordinator prior to an extended period of absence.
	9.1.9	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), 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 from their normal place of residence 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.
	9.1.10	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.
	9.1.11	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 Coordinators 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 Dishonesty in Assessment are available in Appendix A.
9.5	Recording of Dishonesty on Transcripts and Student Records If a student has been found to be dishonest in assessment, a note shall be placed on the student’s record. If a student has been found to be dishonest in assessment on a second occasion Unit Coordinators in all subsequent units are to be informed that student is a repeat offender. If a student has been found to be dishonest in assessment on a third occasion, in addition to the recommended penalties, the University reserves the right to place a note on the student’s transcript.

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, did not participate in any assessments after HECS census date Final Grades for units which only award pass/fail: UP Ungraded pass N Fail DNS Fail, did not participate in any assessments after HECS census date Interim grades: G Good standing NA Not available Q Deferred Assessment S Supplementary Assessment
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) Students fail to submit any assessed work after the HECS unit census date and who do not withdraw prior to the withdrawal date. 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.
11.3	Distribution of Grades The University does not allow 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’ or 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 Component scores shall be combined in a way that is consistent with the weightings assigned to the components. Final grades awarded shall maintain the relativities between cumulative scores (that is, a student with a higher cumulative score than another student should not be awarded a lower grade, and two students who receive the same cumulative score should be awarded the same grade). University grades are awarded as follows: 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, did not submit any assignments after HECS census date S Supplementary Assessment 45 - 49%* *The award of the grade of S shall be at the discretion of the Unit Coordinator The University requires the use of these percentage ranges. Academic transcripts will include both the grade and final mark for all students. The initial unit assessment advice shall indicate whether or not moderation may be applied to the unit assessment. 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; which ever 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 Coordinators must take steps to ensure that grades awarded by tutors are equitable and that the need for adjustment of tutorial group means is minimised. Unit Coordinators 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 grades 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 types 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 Coordinator 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. Generally performance in a particular component should equate to performance overall and there should be parity between the number mark and the final grade. Because 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, 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 Students have the right to request an explanation of grades allocated for work completed during the standard teaching period. 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 initially informally discuss the matter with the Unit Coordinator. If the matter is not resolved at this time, the student should write to the Head of School requesting, and providing justification for, a re-mark. Students have the right to request re-marking of an assessment if they believe the mark received is inaccurate. Requests for re-marking must be received prior to the deadline for appeals against unit results. The Head of School will decide if a re-mark is warranted. For students who request a re-mark, the re-marked result will be the officially recorded result for that assessment item. A re-mark should be undertaken on a clean copy of the assignment as submitted, or examination.
11.10	Retaking a Unit or Component It has been the practice of some Unit Coordinators, 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, HECS 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 Coordinators’ Responsibilities
	12.1.1	Unit Coordinators are responsible for reporting grades and marks to the Faculty office, where the results will be loaded on the Callista 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 supplementary assessment is thought necessary an application should be made to the Board of Examiners detailing the date, time and type of assessment. Where granted, the Unit Coordinator will notify students in writing of supplementary assessment arrangements. (See pro forma letter to students awarded supplementary assessment).
	12.1.3	After the completion of the unit, Unit Coordinators must lodge in the Faculty 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 Coordinators 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 (MyInfo) 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 Coordinator 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 Coordinators 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 Coordinator; where an examination script has yet to be received by the University; where the Faculty 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 types 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 (S) may be reported where the student has a borderline fail grade (45 - 49%) the unit, but the Unit Coordinator is able to arrange extra work and/or an examination to give the student a further opportunity to demonstrate achievement of the unit objectives. The Unit Coordinator 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 Coordinator believes the student has a reasonable probability of achieving a pass in the unit by this mechanism. Unit Coordinators 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 Coordinator reports a grade of S, they must at the same time post to the student’s registered correspondence address a letter giving details of any extra work required and the date for the submission of any such work and of any supplementary examination. The letter should also advise that the award of supplementary assessment is subject to conferral by 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 Coordinator 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 have a responsibility to submit a cover sheet with all written work for continuous assessment which includes a signed declaration ‘ except where I have indicated, the work I am submitting in this assignment is my own work and has not been submitted for assessment in another unit’ or words to that effect. Students are also responsible for ensuring delivery of the assessment work to the secure location provided. Students are required to maintain a copy of all submitted work until at least the expiration of the appeal period.
13.2	Unit Coordinators’ Responsibilities Unit Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that provision is made for all assessment work to be submitted and returned to students (e.g. in tutorials, at an office or by mail), and not left for collection in public locations where persons other than the student could remove it without authority. In the case of end-of-teaching period exams, Unit Coordinators 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 Students may be required to submit assignments electronically. Unit Coordinators who require assignments electronically 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. An electronic cover sheet should be used which includes the declaration required in 13.1. Students submitting assignments electronically must do it in accordance with the Electronic Assignment Submission and Marking policy.
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. 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 Coordinator/Tutor should make the student aware of any penalties when granting the extension.

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

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

This Assessment policy specifies that units must have multiple points of assessment. In some units, Unit Coordinators may determine that an examination held during the a standard teaching period and not during the examination period is pedagogically appropriate for that unit (mid standard teaching period examination). Responsibility for the organisation of examinations within the standard teaching period lies with the Unit Coordinator.

Students must be provided with all information on examinations held during a standard teaching period and not during the examination period as part of the Unit Materials.

16. DEFERRED ASSESSMENT

16.1	A student may be granted deferred assessment in a unit or units on the grounds of serious illness or other exceptional personal circumstances which seriously impair the student’s performance. The following conditions apply: the student must have been up-to-date with the assessment requirements of the unit at the time the circumstances requiring deferred assessment arose; to be considered up-to-date with the assessment requirements of a unit, at the time the circumstances requiring deferred assessment arose the student must have submitted all work due for assessment by then (or been granted an extension to a later date), and it must still be possible to pass the unit; any application must be submitted no later than the last week of the teaching period or, in the event of circumstances arising after that date, before the examination (if the unit does not have an examination during the assessment period, then before the end of the assessment period). Applications lodged after then shall not be considered, unless they fall within guidelines adopted by Academic Council. Any application shall be in writing addressed to Office of Central Student Administration 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 granted for illness or other circumstances occurring in the first three weeks of semester or pro rata for shorter or longer teaching periods; where an application is based on illness or other circumstances occurring in weeks 4-7 of semester or pro rata for shorter or longer teaching periods and not continuing after then, deferred assessment normally shall not be granted, unless it can be demonstrated that this had a severe impact on the student’s ability to complete the assessment work in the unit by the end of the semester.
16.2	Deferred assessment requires the approval of Office of Central Student Administration, acting within guidelines approved by Academic Council. A student may appeal to the Chair of the Student Appeals Committee against rejection of her or his application any such appeal must be lodged within seven days of the date of the letter notifying rejection of the application.
16.3	Assessment can normally be deferred for up to six weeks after the end of the standard and non-standard teaching period. In extreme cases (eg a student with a serious condition requiring prolonged recovery, and a single unit result is required for graduation), a deferral may be granted for a longer period up to the end of the next teaching period. 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 Coordinator is required to report a result six weeks after the end of the standard or non standard teaching period (eight weeks in the case of second semester). The timing of reporting of results of a deferred assessment may be at any stage within 6 weeks after the end of the assessment period (8 weeks for semester 2 units) as determined by the Unit Coordinator. For units having a substantial project, practical or placement component which makes the arrangement of additional work required impractical within this timeframe, the deadline may be extended to the end of the applicable standard teaching period immediately following the unit assessment period. If the deferred assessment has an examination and the Unit Coordinator would like it to be supervised by Office of Central Student Administration, the examination should be held during the supplementary/deferred examinations period scheduled by Office of Central Student Administration. In cases of extended illness, the Office of Central Student Administration may approve a further extension of time which shall not be later than the end of the semester following that in which the unit would ordinarily have been completed.
16.5	Deferred assessment is not normally available for units in which the student has been granted supplementary assessment.

17. GRIEVANCES AND APPEALS OF RESULTS

17.2	Grievance Process
17.3	Appeals Against Unit Results

18. DISHONESTY IN ASSESSMENT

Information regarding dishonesty in assessment can be found in the University Handbook, Section 1, Undergraduate Studies, Assessment and Academic Progress, 8th heading and at http://handbook.murdoch.edu.au/geninfo/assessment.html#assessment.