Skip to content
Curtin University

Assessment Quality Process (AQP)

Assessment classification work performance aid

Link to Assessment classification work performance aidOpen aid

 

AQ Survey Guide

AQP Survey User's Guide V3.pdfView PDF

 

Function of the Assessment Quality Process

  • The Assessment Quality Process is integral to Curtin’s assessment quality (AQ) assurance process as outlined in section 9 of the Assessment and Student Progression Manual (ASPM). 
  • Each School’s AQ Panel is responsible for AQ assurance and improvement processes, including a review of moderation and academic integrity processes in each unit. 
  • The AQP unit survey is conducted twice per year and the report constructed from each unit's survey data helps to identify AQ and policy compliance issues to ensure consistent and fair assessment practices at Curtin. 

diagram of four intertwined cycles from unit through to university that make up the assessment quality process

The AQ Process describes a cycle of continuous quality improvement and quality assurance. It consists of four inter-related cycles as shown in the diagram above:

    1. BLUE Data is collected from unit coordinators via a unit survey. Unit coordinators are provided with a unique survey link for every unit and complete a series of questions related to each summative assessment in each unit. Questions are tailored via survey logic to relate to the unique as well as common requirements for different types of assessments, with the assessment classification being determined (currently within the survey) by responses to a series of fixed-choice questions about the nature of the work that is being assessed. The survey consists of a compulsory section (Section 1) with questions related to the AQ Standards and an optional section (Section 2) comprising questions related to good practice in assessment beyond the minimum threshold Standards. Unit survey data is exported from Qualtrics and is processed by Business Intelligence (Office of Strategy and Planning) with reporting available via SAS Visual Analytics (SAS VA). The AQ Process reports performance against each Standard for each assessment as well as for the unit as a whole. For a unit to achieve an overall rating of ‘compliant’ for a Standard, the requirements must be met for all assessments tasks. Units for which no response was received are automatically rated as not compliant. Unit level data are aggregated to form School/Area-level, Faculty-level, and University-level data for each Standard.
    2. ORANGE Each School/Area convenes an AQ Panel which is responsible for monitoring and reporting on indicators of assessment quality as well as developing and implementing plans for improvement for that School/Area. Schools review and report on the performance against the standards but are also encouraged to extend the process to other aspects of assessment quality as relevant to the courses and units offered.
    3. PINK The School results and plans are aggregated into Faculty-level plans by the Dean Learning and Teaching (for the Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Curtin Business School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Faculty of Humanities) and the Director, Quality Assurance (Faculty of Science and Engineering).
    4. GREEN Curtin Learning and Teaching then aggregates the data and action plans to produce a report submitted to University Learning and Teaching Committee and to Academic Board.

The unit team incorporates all staff delivering and supporting the deliveery of a unit to students. The size of the team is proportional to the number of students enrolled in the unit and/or the number of availabilities into which the unit is delivered.

  • Unit Coordinator (UC)
  • Teaching staff
  • Teaching support officer(s) (TSO)
  • Lab technicians
  • Clinical/Industry practitioners

The diagram below describes some of the key assessment related activities carried out by the unit team. The roles and responsibilties of different members of the team for each of the activities can vary. However, the UChas overall responsibility for the execution of each task. In terms of the review and reporting on assessment quality and specifically the 8 standards the UC is sent a link to the AQP unit survey and is responsible for ensuring that Part 1 of the survey is competed and submitted. The UC should review the Unit Level Report to identify any standards where the unit does not meet the standard and should implement changes to address the gaps.

 

The role of the co-assessor is to assist the unit coordinator to ensure that appropriate assessment practices are being executed within the unit. The duties support the functions of the domains of fair and consistent assessment by ensuring that pre-marking and post-marking moderations are appropriate and carried out in a timely fashion. The duties also ensure the integrity of student results by reducing the risk of grade tampering, coersion of markers, or unfair manipulation of students in all units but in particular in units where only one staff member is involved.

The specification of the co-assessor role supports the collegial management of the course curriculum by facilitating dialogue about assessment design and constructive alignment with unit and course learning outcomes.

What to do Guidance and Tips

Optional: Review and provide feedback on the assessment design

Review of assessment design is generally conducted as part of comprehensive course review or course design procedures, however regular confirmation is required to prevent drift particularly as the assessment task is modified/enhanced with use.

  • Is there clear alignment of the assessment task with the Unit Learning Outcome(s)
  • Is the type and design of the assessment task appropriate for assessing the relevant ULOs
  • Is the weighting of the assessment appropriate, reflecting the expected effort by students
Review the assessment task description/procedures and communication strategy

The aim is to ensure that the requirements and procedures necessary to complete the assessment task are written using inclusive accessible language, are comprehensive, and are communicated to students in a timely fashion using accessible and inclusive channels

Key things to consider:

  • Are the task requirements/questions stated clearly and unambiguously?
  • Is the language inclusive and accessible?
  • Is the allocation of marks to components/questions clearly indicated?
  • Are the procedures needed to complete the assessment clearly outlined?
  • Have the assessment task requirements been communicated with an appropriate lead time to allow students adequate time to plan/prepare/complete the work?
  • For group tasks, is it clear how the marks for each student will be determined? Are there seperate marks for the product and the group process?

Review of the marking criteria/marking mechanism

The aims are to ensure that:

  • The marking criteria are communicated to students as part of the task requirements. The degree of detail provided to students may differ for specific assessment types, however the guiding principle is to communicate as much information as possible without compromising the assessment process itself. For all assessment types except examination type task this generally means that the marking criteria are provided to students
  • The criteria by which their work will be judged is clear and understandable by students
  • The marking criteria and supporting information/discussions ensure that markers are able to apply the criteria to make fair and consistent judgements

For a marking rubric

    • Are the criteria (rows) suitable for the task and aligned with the CLOs or ULOs?
    • Do the grade descriptors (columns) clearly differentiate the levels of achievement?
    • Is the method for determining the mark clearly articulated (hollistic judement vs analytic method)
    • Is the rubric manageable for the marker given the expected time allocation?

For a marking key:

    • Are the questions/task parts and associated criteria aligned with the CLOs or ULOs?
    • Is the allocation of marks to parts of the task/questions clear?
    • Is sufficient detail about required responses provided to markers to enable fair and consistent judgements?

For automated or computer marked assessments:

    • what is the strategy for determining question discrimination and for modifying or retiring quesitons with poor discrimination?
    • what reuse/renewal ratio for question pools?
Confirm the results were correctly entered into the Blackboard Grade Centre Strategies have been implemented to prevent and to address data entry errors. Strategies need to be appropriate for the mechanism of entry of marks e.g. automatic entry via emarking, batch uploaded, manually entered.

Confirm that, when required, any change to the mark initially recorded is justified and defensible

The co-assessor should monitor changes to marks. Ideally they should be notified when a change to a student's mark is required. They may also review the grade history in the Blackboard Grade Centre.

Examples of reasons for changes to marks include but are not limited to:

  • application of penalties for late submission
  • marking error/ommission e.g. question/part not marked
  • administrative error e.g. incorrect adding up
  • post-marking moderation identifies marker bias requiring modification of marks up or down
  • intra-marking or post-marking moderation second marking strategies identifes inter-marker differences

The reason for the change and type/ magnitude of change must be recorded in the Grading Note section of the BbGC

  • application of penalties for late submissions must clearly indicate the magnitude of the reduction in mark

Recommended: Confirm that assessment related processes ensure fair and consistent assessment for all students

Ensure that all markers have access to the marking guide/rubric before marking begins.

Ideally assessors(markers) should be involved in constructing and reviewing/modifying the marking guide/rubric.

Where multiple assessors(markers) are required, implement strategies to build and maintain consensus and understanding about the marking tool and how to evaluate student work.

Review the process for the evaluation and granting of assessment extensions, to confirm consistency with the policy parameters and check for consistenccy within and between units

When an unforeseeable issue with the assessment process arises the Unit Coordinator has sought advice (eg. from Director of Learning and Teaching) and that an appropriate strategy to resolve the issue has been implemented



Composition of the AQ Panel

The role of Chair and membership of the AQ panel is as designated by the Head of School. The optimal composition of the AQP will depend on the structure and organisation of the area.
Consider:

  • Who has responsibilities for quality of assessment at the course/major/Department/School level?
  • Who is in a position to be able to help effect changes within the area?

Advise CLT-Assessment (CTLAssessment@curtin.edu.au) of any changes to chair and membership of the AQPanel so that communications and access to systems can be appropriately managed.

Facilitating the AQ unit survey

As outlined in the timetable of tasks the AQProcess begins with a query to identify units to be surveyed. The list of units is sent to the Chair of the AQPanel for review. At this point the panel is responsible to check for the accuracy of the list and to exclude units from the survey process. Units may be marked as excluded for one of the following reasons:

Exclude -Combined
Exclude -Unit Teaching Out
Exclude -Deactivated
Exclude -Did Not Run
Exclude -Partnership Arrangement

Deactivated and Did Not Run exclusions allow areas to redress issues stemming from the data feed from S1. If a student fails to withdraw from a unit that was planned but did not run it may still have an enrolment >0 and will be included in the list of units drawn from S1. Units Teaching Out should only have a small number of students and run for a limited number of iterations until deactivated.

The main reason for exclusion is not really exclusion but combining of co-taught units so that only one survey response is required. Units can be combined where there are two availabilities of the same unit where the number, name, weighting and classification of each of the assessment tasks is the same. If any one of the these things is different then the unit should be listed two or more times in the list so that seperate unit survey links can be sent.

If the panel does not confirm the list of units by the specified due date then all units on the list will be included in the process and count towards the units surveyed number.

A unique survey link is generated for each unit identified as included on the list. The link is sent to the email address of the person identified on the list as the Unit Coordinator. Ideally these details should be checked and ammended as required during the unit list review process. If something changes after the link is sent, the link may be forwarded to a different member of the unit team to complete the survey.

Accessing the AQ data

Members of the panel are provided with assess to the School Level Report to facilitate review and ongoing management of assessment quality in their area. This report can be accessed at any time and during the unit survey collection period gives an indication of survey response rates and units that have responded. The Head of School, Heads of Department (where appropriate) and Teaching Support Coordinator are also granted access to the School Level Report. The School Level Report incorporates the ability to drill down to view detail about each assessment task within a unit.

Access to the Faculty Level Report is also granted to those individuals listed above. The faculty report enables benchmarking within and across faculties. The Faculty Level Report shows only summary data at the school and faculty levels and does not permit drilling down to the unit level.

Presently the AQ Process data is reporting using SAS Visual Analytics tool. The main advantage of this environment is the ability to dynamically filter large amounts of data, for example comparing data across AQ reporting periods. As a visual analytics tool there are limited options for exporting or printing.

Conducting an AQ Panel meeting

Guidelines for conducting an AQ Panel meeting

Reporting following the AQ Panel meeting

Each Assessment Quality Panel’s report serves a number of functions. The reports are to:

  • document the process of continuous quality improvement in relation to the AQ Standards in the School/Area to contribute to University-level reporting on the AQ Process.
  • provide information for the Dean Learning and Teaching to for use in identifying priorities and actions for the Faculty/Area-level report.
  • guide actions within the School/Area aimed at improving assessment quality processes.

The AQP report should include a brief reflection on the ‘change achieved’ and the ‘change needed’ in relation to each of the three Assessment Quality Domains (Academic Integrity, Fair and Consistent Assessment, Integrity of Student Results).

Some examples of how to formulate a reflection/response or action plan are provided.

Each faculty Dean Learning and Teaching reviews the performance against the standards across the faculty as well as the Response/Reflection/Action Plans submitted by each school AQ Panel. The Dean then formulates a faculty Action Plan.

Curtin Learning and Teaching are responsible for reviewing all Response/Reflection/Action Plans and all data for an AQ period to construct a report that is submitted to the University Learning and Teaching Committee and to the Academic Board for discussion.


 

The academic calendar for each year is divided into two halves (H1, H2) with all Curtin study periods ending between Jan 1 and June 30 being included in H1 and study periods ending between July 1 and Dec 31 being included in H2.

Listed below are the due dates for the completion of critical tasks in the data collection and reporting processes. Where appropriate an indication is also given of when the task can begin.

   

2017 H1


 

2017 H2


 
Responsibility Task Start Date  Due Date Start Date  Due Date
School AQP Chair Review units list from S1 to confirm units to be surveyed and unit coordinator details 15 May 2017 29 May 2017 16 Oct 2017 30 Oct 2017
Unit Coordinators Complete AQP Unit survey for each unit  5 June 2017 14 July 2017 6 Nov 2017 12 Jan 2018
School AQ Panel Monitor unit survey completions        
School AQ Panel School AQ Panel meets  18 July 2017 11 Aug 2017   9 Feb 2018
School AQP Chair Submits School Reflection/Response/Plan   11 Aug 2017   9 Feb 2018
Dean L&T Submits Faculty Reflection/Response/Plan 11 Aug 2017 8 Sept 2017   9 March 2018
CLT University level Response/Reflection/Plan   15 Sept 2017   16 March 2018
ULTC meeting   9 Oct 2017   April 2018

* Due dates shifted to account for survey expired link downtime first week of Jan 2017.

Click on a standard below or download to see detailed information about the required actions for each assessment classification

Assessment Domain: Academic Integrity

All text based assessment artefacts are submitted to Turnitin.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

Submission: Document:Text-based:Digital artefact

Students submit an electronic file to Turnitin
AND
For each submission, the Turnitin Originality Report is reviewed as part of the marking process

[ASPM 5.1.2]

Submission
Performance
Combination
WIL

None, automatically classified as 'not applicable compliant'

[ASPM 5.1.2]

Steps have been taken to ensure the authentication of students’ work across all assessment tasks in the unit.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

Submission: Document:Text-based:Digital artefact

Students submit an electronic file to Turnitin

[ASPM 5.1.2]

Examination: Exam:Central-invigilated:Central;
Examination: Exam:School-invigilated:School;
Examination: Exam:School-invigilated:In-class;
Examination: Test:School-invigilated:Labtest;
Examination: eTest:Central-invigilated:Invigilated;
Examination: eTest:School-invigilated:Invigilated

Student identity is verified
AND
The test/exam is invigilated

[ASPM 5.1.2]

Examination: eTest:Non-Invigilated:Digital

The test includes a candidate agreement statement that addresses academic integrity

[ASPM 11.3.2.2]

Submission
Performance
Combination
WIL

Must describe the processes implement to verify: that the work assessed is that of the student. School AQP to review submitted explanation text.

[ASPM 5.1.2]


Assessment Domain: Fair and Consistent Assessment

A co-assessor is appointed for the unit and has performed their duties, or suitable arrangements were made to manage the co-assessor duties for each of the assessment tasks in the unit.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

Submission
Performance
Combination
WIL

A co-assessor was assigned for this unit
AND
They reviewed the assessment task and marking guide* prior to release to students
AND (* as appropriate for the type of assessment)
They confirmed that the results were correctly entered into Blackboard Grade Centre

[ASPM 9.4]; [ASPM 9.6]

Examination

A co-assessor (co-examiner) was assigned for this unit or suitable arrangements were made to manage the co-assessor duties for the assessment tasks in the unit
AND
They reviewed the questions and marking key prior to the test/exam 
AND
They confirmed that the results were correctly entered into Blackboard Grade Centre

[ASPM 9.4]; [ASPM 9.6]

Requirements for pre-marking moderation have been met.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

Submission
Performance
Combination
WIL practicum

Assessment task details are provided to students in the unit outline or prior to the assessment task
AND
Marking criteria are made available to students in the unit outline or when the assessment task is assigned
AND
Assessors are provided with rubric/marking guide and sufficient information to ensure fair and consistent evaluation of student work

[ASPM 5.2.1]

Examination: Exam:Central-invigilated:Central;
Examination: Exam:School-invigilated:School;
Examination: Exam:School-invigilated:In-class;
Examination: Test:School-invigilated:Labtest

Assessment task details are provided to students in the unit outline or prior to the assessment task
AND
Assessors are provided with rubric/marking guide and sufficient information to ensure fair and consistent evaluation of student work

[ASPM 5.2.1]
Examination: eTest:Central-invigilated:Invigilated;
Examination: eTest:School-invigilated:Invigilated;
Examination: eTest:Non-Invigilated:Digital
Assessment task details are provided to students in the unit outline or prior to the assessment task [ASPM 5.2.1]

Requirements for post-marking moderation have been met.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

All classifications

Second marking of student work samples near grade boundaries
OR
Second marking of borderline student work
OR
Second marking of outlier samples
OR
Analysis of the variances between markers and locations, or analysis of validity for eTests
OR
Second marking of a random sample to check for consistent application of marking criteria and standards
OR
Moderation of a sample of marked work by individuals outside of the teaching/marking team
OR
Panel of academics discuss and collectively reach a consensus

[ASPM 6.1]


Assessment Domain: Integrity of Student Results

All assessment tasks are submitted electronically to Blackboard where a text-based or electronic artefact is available (e.g. Word, Excel, PDF, image, multimedia, computer program).

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

Submission: Document:Text-based:Digital artefact

Students submit an electronic file to Turnitin

[ASPM 5.1.1]

Submission: File:Non-text:Digital artefact

Electronic file to Blackboard assignment link
OR
Electronic file using alternative mechanism

[ASPM 5.1.1]
Submission: Link:Text-based;
Submission: Link:Non-text:Media;
Submission: Electronic portfolio:Text-based:Digital artefact;
Submission: Electronic portfolio:Non-text:Digital artefact
Automatically compliant  
All other classifications None, automatically classified as 'not applicable compliant'  

Marks for all summative assessment tasks are entered into the Blackboard Grade Centre, including the final mark.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

All classifications

Results were recorded in Grade Centre as part of, or immediately following, the marking process

[ASPM 5.3.1]


All changes to student marks for an assessment task were approved by the relevant unit coordinator, with a reason for the changes recorded in Blackboard Grade Centre.

For Assessments Classified as Required actions Policy Reference

All classifications

All changes to marks, after initial entry to the Grade Centre, have a reason recorded

[ASPM 5.3.2]


 


In developing a method of assessing performance against the AQ Standards for each of the AQ Domains it became apparent that how each domain was demonstrated was influenced by the nature of, or kind, of assessment. In particular, the nature of the work [by the student] that is being assessed. This led to the development of the assessment classification taxonomy. This classification taxonomy is also used in the curriculum management system (AKARI) where the first three levels of classification are captured (download .pdf or use the interactive work performance aid).

The taxonomy describes five broad types of assessment (AC Level 1): Submission, Examination, Performance, Combination, WIL-Practicum

  • The submission class contains all assessments where the work being assessed is an artefact submitted by the student (excluding exam/test scripts).
  • The examination/test class contains assessments that typically happen within a controlled environment (e.g. exam venue or in-class) and where the students are asked to respond to a fixed set of questions/stimuli.
  • The performance class contains assessments where there typically(traditionally) is not a formal record of the activity. The activity is ephemeral, happens in real-time, and the performance is evaluated/marked by an assessor who was present and able to view/experience the performance.
  • The combination class recognises that it is common for a presentation to have an accompanying submission, or similarly for there to be a requirement that a submitted artefact (e.g. art work or portfolio) to be accompanied by a verbal defence of the work.
  • The Work Integrated Learning Practicuum class recognises the complex nature of the work that is being assessed, over an extended period, in a practicum or fieldwork placement. The work that is being assess is a mix of performance, verbal defence of decisions as well as documentation of actions and creation of supporting artefacts. It often involves assessors from the WIL environment which can introduce a new layer of risk/quality requirements.

AC  Level 1

 

What work is being assessed

AC  Level 2

 

Assessment/object type

AC  Level 3

 

Nature/conditions

Submission Document Text-based
Submission Document Text-based
Submission File Non-text
Submission Object Physical
Submission Link Text-based
Submission Link Non-text
Submission Portfolio Physical
Submission Electronic portfolio Text-based
Submission Electronic portfolio Non-text
Examination Exam Central-invigilated
Examination Exam School-invigilated
Examination Exam School-invigilated
Examination Test School-invigilated
Examination eTest Central-invigilated
Examination eTest School-invigilated
Examination eTest Non-Invigilated
Submission Take-home exam Non-Invigilated
Submission Take-home exam Non-Invigilated
Submission Take-home exam Non-Invigilated
Performance Skill Demonstration
Performance Skill Creative
Performance Presentation In-class
Performance Presentation Online
Performance Presentation Other
Combination Presentation and Document Inclass and text-based
Combination Presentation and File Inclass and non-text-based
Combination Presentation and Document Onlline and text-based
Combination Presentation and File Onlineand non-text-based
Combination Presentation and Object Studioand non-text-based
Combination Presentation and Document Otherand text-based
Combination Presentation and File Otherand non-text-based
WIL-Practicuum Integrated knowledge-skills-behaviours Performance evaluation

Click on a topic to see detailed information about what to do, the related AQ standard, and some guidance and tips for how to do it.

What to do Related AQ Standard Guidance and Tips

Identify a Co-assessor for the unit

or ensure that a Co-assessor has been identified for each assessment task

Standard 3:
Co-assessor duties

To facilitate some of the functions of the role (e.g review of assessment and marking guide/rubric), the co-assessor may be a member of the teaching team for the unit.  In some large units where a Deputy Unit Coordinator already exists they may also be designated as the Co-assessor.

If the Co-assessor is a member of the teaching team there should be strategies in place to ensure that the Co-assessor functions can be executed in an objective fashion without bias or influence.
Ensure that information about each assessment task is provided in the Unit Outline

Standard 4:
Pre-marking moderation

The Unit Outline should contain sufficient information for students to determine the type of assessment task, to estimate the effort required to complete the task, and to plan to complete (submission type) or prepare for the task (Examination or Performance). A more detailed description of the task can be provided in Blackboard.
For each assessment task include information about how the assessment task will be marked. For submission, performance, combination and WIL classifications students should be provided with, or directed to, a copy of the marking guide/rubric

Standard 4:
Pre-marking moderation

The Unit Outline should contain sufficient information for students to determine how the assessment task will be marked. This may be a short paragraph indicating that a marking guide/rubric will be used, and a list of the dimensions (row and column headings from the rubric) on which the judgement about the work will be made. A more detailed description, in the form of the full marking guide/rubric, can be provided in Blackboard.
Have the Co-assessor review the Unit Outline

Standard 3:
Co-assessor duties

Keep a record (electronic or hardcopy) of the communications with the Co-assessor including their confirmation that sufficient information has been included in the Unit Outline to meet Standard 4.

For all types of assessment the strategy and associated procedures to assure academic integrity should include:

  • explicit instruction about academic integrity as it applies to the type of assessment is provided to students
  • instructions to students include a statement outlining the expected conditions and/or the expected student behaviour (as appropriate to the task)

For each assessment task determine the assessment classification then refer to the table below for recommended actions

Assessment Classification Related AQ Standard Recommended Actions

 

Submission: Document:Text-based:Digital artefact

Standard 1:
Use of Turnitin
Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity

For all text-based work a text-matching tool should be used, Turnitin is the text-matching tool implemented and supported at Curtin.

For submissions that are developed by a group consider strategies that support students to manage the group process and where necessary evaluate student contributions to assure individual student learning and achievement of ULOs.
Submission:Document:Text-based:Handwritten artefact
Submission:File:Non-text:Digital artefact
Submission:Object:Physical artefact
Submission:Link:Text-based
Submission:Link:Non-text:Media
Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity
 
Submission:Portfolio:Physical:Physical-Portfolio
Submission:Electronic portfolio:Text-based:Digital artefact
Submission:Electronic potfolio:Non-text:Digital artefact
Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity
 

Examination:eTest:Non-Invigilated:Digital

Examination:eTest:Central-invigilated:Invigilated
Examination:eTest:School-invigilated:Invigilated

Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity

Incorporate a candidate agreement statement at the beginning of the test. Students should also be notified in advance so that they may plan to meet the requirements.
Examination:Exam:School-invigilated:In-class
Examination:Test:School-invigilated:Labtest

Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity

Incorporate a candidate agreement statement at the beginning of the test. Students should also be notified in advance so that they may plan to meet the requirements.

 

Submission:Takehome exam:Non-Invigilated:Physical artefact
Submission:Takehome exam:Non-Invigilated:Handwritten artefact
Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity
Require the students too complete and submit a candidate agreement statement as part of or accompanying the submission.
Performance: Presentation:Online

Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity

Require the students to complete and submit a candidate agreement statement.
Performance: Skill:Demonstration
Performance: Presentation:In-class
Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity
As the work being assessed is the performance which is directly observed by the marker the threats to academic integrity are few. The AI strategy should however consider any threats that may be introduced in the student's preparation for the performance.
Performance: Skill:Creative Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity
 
Combination Standard 1:
Use of Turnitin
Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity
Employ actions are described above for each component of the combination of submission and presentation

What to do Related AQ Standard Guidance and Tips

Set up electronic submission links for TEXT-BASED assessments in Blackboard as “Turnitin assignments”

Standard 1:
Use of Turnitin

Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity

Tips on setting up Turnitin assignments

Set up links for electronic submission of all OTHER assessments that can be submitted in digital form
(e.g. Excel, PDF, image, multimedia, computer program)

Standard 6: 
Electronic Submission

Information about managing assessment via Blackboard

Tips on using Grade Centre

Set up Blackboard Grade Centre for recording results for all summative assessments

Standard 7:
Marks recorded in Blackboard Grade Centre

Information on setting up Blackboard Grade Centre

If using Blackboard to deliver eTests for summative assessment (for marks), develop a candidate agreement statement to put at the start of the test (also applicable to all other forms of non-invigilated tests/exams

Standard 2:
Authentication/ Academic Integrity

The candidate agreement statement should outline the expected conditions and student behaviour for the assessment. The student should be required to “Agree” with the statement before they are allowed to proceed to the test items.

Templates for different types of tests

Give the Co-assessor for the unit access to the Blackboard site to allow them to review marks in Grade Centre Standard 3:
Co-assessor duties

Instructions for managing staff users


What to do Related AQ Standard Guidance and Tips

Provide assessment tasks details/info to Co-assessor for review prior to release to students

Standard 3:
Co-assessor duties

Standard 4:
Pre-marking moderation

Ensure the Co-assessor has access to all materials/resources to be released to students that describe the assessment task or support the students’ completion of the task

Instructions on “how to add staff users” to the Blackboard unit

For all assessment classifications except Examination provide marking criteria/rubrics to Co-assessor for review prior to release to students

Standard 3:
Co-assessor duties

Standard 4:
Pre-marking moderation

If using eMarking provide access to the GradeMark or Blackboard rubric to the Co-assessor.
Instructions on “how to create rubrics” in GradeMark

Instructions on “how to create rubrics” in Blackboard

If using other forms of marking guide/rubric ensure the Co-assessor has access or is provided with hardcopies.

For assessment tasks in the Examination classification provide marking criteria/rubrics to Co-assessor prior to submission/printing of the exam paper or prior to the delivery of the test

Standard 3:
Co-assessor duties

Standard 4:
Pre-marking moderation

For paper based exams and tests provide the Co-assessor with a copy of the marking guide.
For eTests ensure that the Co-assessor has access to the question bank and that all new or modified questions are reviewed, including validation of the scoring.

Provide the assessors(markers) with the rubric/marking guide and sufficient information to ensure fair and consistent evaluation of student work

Standard 4:
Pre-marking moderation

Ensure that all markers have access to the marking guide/rubric before marking begins. If they have direct student contact (tutor/lecturer) they should be provided with access prior to release of the assessment to students in order to respond appropriately to student queries.


Where multiple assessors(markers) are required implement strategies to build and maintain consensus and understanding about the marking tool and how to evaluate student work.


Ideally assessors(markers) should be involved in constructing and reviewing/modifying the marking guide/rubric.

Instruct the assessors(markers) how to record the mark for the assessment task in BbBC

Standard 7:
Marks recorded in Blackboard Grade Centre

If using eMarking workflows the mark will be recorded automatically.

This video demonstrates “how to use a rubric” in GradeMark

Otherwise, ensure the assessors(markers) know how to enter individual student marks or upload sets of marks as appropriate to the assessment.

Information about “how to enter marks in BbGC”

Instruct the assessors(markers) how to record in BbGC the rationale for any changes to a student’s mark (after the initial entry).

Provide guidance on the types of changes that assessors may record and/or the process for escalating mark changes to the UC for approval

Standard 8:
Mark changes in Blackboard Grade Centre

Information about “how to change marks in BbGC”

Examples of types of mark changes and rationale

Plan which post-marking moderation strategies will be employed (as appropriate to the type of assessment and the size of the unit)

Standard 5:
Post-marking moderation

 

All faculties and owning areas now use the same survey and reporting mechanism. This allows consistent data to be collected and analysed to facilitate congruent reporting across the university. The survey is presented in two sections addressing 1) AQ assurance and 2) AQ improvement.

Section 1: AQ Assurance asks questions specific to the policy statements found in the Assessment and Student Progression Manual.

  • Questions relate to minimum standards and are focused at the assessment task level
  • The Unit Coordinator must answer a set of questions for each assessment task in the unit
  • All questions are compulsory
  • Skipping a question will result in an outcome of non-compliance for the related standard

Section 2: AQ Improvement allows for the sharing of effective AQ practices that exceed minimum standards.

  • Questions are optional
  • Questions are focused at the unit level

Assessment Quality Assurance and Improvement Reports

The assessment quality data for units, collected via the units survey, is made available for analysis and planning via the Business Intelligence (BI) SAS-Visual Analytics platform.

  • Access for Unit Coordinators will be granted automatically approximately 1-2 working days after submitting the unit survey. UCs are only able to view the evaluation of units for which they have completed the unit survey.
  • Access for members of the School AQ Panel is granted upon request. Access is managed by the BI team and requires Head of School approval.

Assessment Quality Process (AQP) Reports

  • Unit Level Report (primarily for UCs, report shows unit progress towards meeting the standards)
  • School Level Report (AQ Panel members, drill down to unit level available)
  • Faculty Level Report (reports school and faculty compliance and reflection/response/plans, accessible by Deans L&T, University executives, HOS, and AQ Panel members)
Term Definition

Period

The AQP reporting period, either H1 or H2 representing the first and second half of each calendar year

H1

AQP reporting period including all study periods ending between Jan 1 and June 30

H2

AQP reporting period including all study periods ending between July 1 and Dec 31

Eligible Units

All units with enrolments for the study periods ending in the AQP reporting period. List of units drawn from S1.

Excluded Units Eligible units that are excluded and not sent a survey link.

Surveyed Units

All units sent a survey link. Where a unit is delivered in multiple study periods within the AQP reporting period the availabilities can be combined and a single survey link is sent. The school may also elect to exclude specific units (e.g. WIL only units, units with low enrolments).

Survey Rate

The proportion of eligible units that were surveyed = Surveyed units / Eligible units

Section 1 Responded Units

Units that completed and submitted the mandatory Assessment Quality Assurance portion of the survey (Section 1)

Section 1 Response Rate

The proportion of units that completed the survey (Section 1) = Responded units / Surveyed units

Section 2 Responded Units

Units that completed and submitted the optional Assessment Quality Improvement portion of the survey (Section 2)

Section 2 Response Rate

The proportion of units that completed optional portion of the survey (Section 2) = Responded units / Surveyed units

Schools review the list of eligible units, identify units to be excluded, and confirm the list of units to be surveyed. Reasons for exclusion are limited to the following:

  • Exclude -Combined (units from different availabilities or different modes of study but that have the same assessment profile (same number, weighting and classification of assessments) may report on the AQ standards using a single survey response. The units not sent a survey are marked as excluded- combined)
  • Exclude -Unit Teaching Out
  • Exclude -Deactivated
  • Exclude -Did Not Run
  • Exclude -Partnership Arrangement (generally where the unit is taught by the partner institution and/or assessment design and quality management are not directly controlled by the Curtin owning org)

Reflection/Response/Plan

The school AQ Panel provides their reflection/response/plan through a separate Qualtrics survey, the text is later imported into SAS-VA and is visible via the School Level and Faculty Level reports. Input access to the panel survey is provided to the chair of the panel only (to ensure a single response from each school).

The school AQ Panel is required to provide a reflection and response for each assessment domain (Academic Integrity; Fair and Consistent Assessment; Integrity of Student Results) plus an action plan. The reflection should focus on reporting 'what has changed' in that domain since the last AQ reporting cycle, including a reflection on the strategies that support staff success in meeting the standards within the domain.

AQ Survey Guide

View PDFAQP Survey User's Guide V3.pdf

SAS VA Reports - Video Demonstration/Walk-through

School Level Report (5 min, 56 MB; best viewed in Chrome or Safari)

Faculty Level Reports (5 min, 62 MB; best viewed in Chrome or Safari)

Unit Level Report (streaming)

AQ Panel Induction

School AQ panel members were provided with an induction through sessions held in February and March of 2016. Materials from these sessions are provided below.

Powerpoint presentation used in the induction session

Recording of online induction session (streaming)