Assessment Policy

1. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that assessment practices at CIT are valid, reliable, fair, and compliant with national standards. Assessment is a critical component of teaching and learning, and this policy provides a framework to guide educators, support learners, and uphold the integrity of CIT qualifications.

This policy supports CIT’s commitment to:

• High-quality vocational education and training
• Learner success and equity
• Industry relevance and workforce readiness
• Continuous improvement and innovation

This policy describes mandatory requirements for assessment practices at Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT), to ensure compliance with the 2025 Standards for RTOs. It supports high-quality, fair and consistent assessment practices, including the responsible integration of Artificial Intelligence tools (including Generative AI and other AI options), while giving educators confidence that academic integrity is maintained and each student has independently demonstrated achievement of the learning and assessment outcomes.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

• All training products delivered by CIT, including qualifications, skill sets, and microcredentials
• All staff involved in the design, delivery, and validation of assessment
• All learners enrolled in CIT programs
• All assessment conducted in workplace, simulated, online, or classroom settings

This policy complements CIT’s Academic Governance Framework and aligns with:

• 2025 Standards for RTOs
• ACT Government education and training policies
• ASQA guidelines and regulatory requirements

This policy applies to:

• all vocational education and training products
• all assessment tools and instruments
• assessment conducted as part of recognition of prior learning (RPL)
• assessments involving the use of AI tools by students or educators.

This policy is to be read in conjunction with the Assessment Procedure and RPL Procedure. Other legislative, regulatory and internal policies and procedures are listed below.

3. Principles

CIT is committed to high standards of assessment to ensure the best possible student outcomes, including a student-focused, flexible and supportive assessment environment.

CIT assessment practices must ensure all assessments, including RPL, are designed and conducted in accordance with the Training and Assessment Strategy (TAS), Principles of Assessment (fairness, flexibility, validity and reliability) and the Rules of Evidence (validity, sufficiency, authenticity and currency), as required by the 2025 Standards.

CIT assessment practices are part of an overall assessment system that:

• follows the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness
• maintains CIT’s academic standards and integrity throughout the assessment process and in line with the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy
• provides a right to appeal an assessment result (Academic Appeals Policy)
• supports online and technology-enhanced assessment, including AI tools when used appropriately and transparently
• encourages responsible use of AI tools as part of the assessment process, while ensuring students demonstrate their own learning and understanding (academic integrity)
• meets the individual needs and characteristics of students, using reasonable adjustment in a way that does not compromise academic integrity (see also Student Support Policy)
• ensures only appropriately qualified educators plan, conduct and validate assessments and determine assessment outcomes (see also Assessment Validation Policy and Assessment Validation Procedure and Educator Competency and Currency Policy)
• enables industry experts to assist in the assessment judgement where specialised expertise is required, working alongside the assessor to conduct the assessment providing:
  • experts have industry competencies and specialised knowledge relevant to the training product
  • experts work under the direction of a credentialed trainer or assessor and conduct assessment alongside them
  • all expert involvement in assessment is subject to oversight by CIT to ensure compliance with the Standards and integrity of assessment judgements
• identify and manage any actual, perceived or real conflict of interest in assessment processes.

3.1 Assessment system

CIT’s assessment system is a coordinated set of practices, policies and procedures. It ensures student assessments meet the Principles of Assessment and Rules of Evidence, and are quality reviewed to meet industry needs and unit of competency requirements.

The assessment system includes:

• governance through Academic Council and the Teaching and Learning Quality Committee (TLQC)
• qualified assessors
• simulated facilities and industry (off-campus) assessment activities
• assessment tools
• pre-delivery assessment reviews
• assessment validation
• assessment quality reviews
• student and industry feedback
• program review and improvement (PRI).

3.2 Assessment planning and design

Assessment tools must:

• be contextualised to each student cohort
• reflect industry requirements
• meet all the assessment requirements of the unit of competency
• be consistent with the relevant Training and Assessment Strategy (TAS).

Assessment tools, including purchased assessment resources, must be mapped against the unit requirements. Additionally, a quality review prior to delivery ensures unit of competency learning outcomes and requirements are addressed, and the tools comply with the Principles of Assessment, Rules of Evidence, training package requirements, and related regulatory and licensing requirements (refer: Assessment Validation Policy).

Assessment tools must be reviewed by staff external to the College as arranged by the Executive Director, Education Futures and Students or the Education Design and Delivery Lead, prior to use to ensure they meet quality standards and align with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence. This includes confirming that tools are valid, sufficient, authentic and current, and that they support fair, flexible, valid and reliable assessment practices. Reviewed assessment tools cannot be amended without consultation as designated by the Executive Director, Education Futures and Students or the Education Design and Delivery Lead.

Assessment tools for courses in the Training and Education Training Package (TAE), specified in the 2025 Standards for RTOs (Credential Policy), must be approved by ASQA prior to implementation, and must not be changed or amended without pre-delivery approval from the Academic Council.

Educators are encouraged to use AI tools to support assessment design, where appropriate. These tools may enhance quality, efficiency and innovation, provided their use aligns with CIT’s standards for academic integrity and assessment quality. Educators need to be aware that AI-generated material is not subject to copyright so AI-generated assessments cannot be copyrighted to CIT.

Assessment processes will ensure students have sufficient time to learn, practice and consolidate the skills and knowledge (meeting volume of learning requirements) before being assessed.

Assessment tasks must:

• clearly link to the learning outcomes of the unit of competency
• be relevant to the teaching content and learning activities
• be designed to assess the knowledge and skills relevant to the unit
• enable students to consistently demonstrate competence in multiple situations and over time
• include a marking guide for educators to judge the quality of performance.

Assessment improvements, identified through validation, industry consultation, course review or audit, must be implemented in the next delivery cycle of the course.

Assessment tools are saved in or linked to specified network drive locations with standardised naming conventions.

Assessment practices must support students to demonstrate their own learning and capability. This includes the use of AI tools, which may enhance learning and assessment when used transparently and appropriately.

Assessment planning must ensure tasks are designed so that students clearly demonstrate what they know and can do, regardless of the tools they use.

3.3 Conducting assessment

Students are fully informed of the assessment process, and CIT’s relevant policies and procedures prior to undertaking assessment, including:

• reasonable adjustment
• special consideration/deferred assessment
• how to reference the ethical use of AI tools in assessment submissions, where applicable (teachers and library staff can assist)
• assessment re-marking and re-appraisal and/or examination re-sit
• assessment appeal.

Recognition of prior learning is made available to all students at enrolment, or prior to commencing training.

Students are provided with reasonable adjustment to assessments to enable them to demonstrate the abilities, skills and knowledge requirements of the course.

While reasonable adjustments are provided to students, the evidence criteria must not be altered in any way to ensure consistency and fairness in assessment decisions. The performance standards must be the same, irrespective of the individual student being assessed.

Students who have compelling or compassionate grounds with valid evidence may apply for special consideration or deferred assessment within the required timeframe, as specified in the Assessment Procedure.

Assessment re-marking/re-appraisal is conducted independently by a qualified assessor, without reference to the original result, mark or the assessor’s comments.

Students have the right to appeal an assessment decision in accordance with the Academic Appeals Policy.

Students will be notified through a CIT communication channel, preferably the Learning Management System (LMS), when an educator extends an assessment or re-assessment due date for all students.

Student have support in assessment: CIT ensures that students have access to trainers, assessors, and relevant support staff throughout their training:

• support services are determined based on student needs and training product requirements, and are made available through CIT’s student support channels
• students are informed about how and when they can access trainers, assessors and other staff to support their progress
• queries related to assessment are responded to in a timely and respectful manner
• reasonable adjustment provisions apply to all assessments.

3.4 Assessment submission

Assessment dates and times must be clearly documented in the subject guides and assessment tasks.

Assessment tasks, whether submitted in hardcopy, physical assessment items, or via the LMS, may be subject to authentication.

Completed assessment items are retained for two years after students have completed training product (as required by 2025 Standards) and in accordance with the Records Management Policy, for validation and audit purposes.

3.5 Assessment attempts

Students will be provided with the opportunity for two attempts at each assessment task, with additional attempts at the discretion of the Head of Department.

Students who miss a scheduled assessment or due date with a valid reason or extenuating circumstances, are allowed two attempts at each assessment task.

Students who miss a scheduled assessment or due date without an extension, or valid reason or extenuating circumstances, are allowed one other opportunity to complete the assessment.

3.6 Determining competence

A student is assessed as ‘satisfactory’ in an assessment task when they have successfully met the specified standard against each of the criteria being assessed.

Where the training product requires that a unit of competency be assessed in the workplace (whether in full or in part), a CIT educator, with qualifications described in the Standards for RTOs: Credential Policy, must make the final assessment judgement. Workplace supervisors may assist the student to assemble evidence for workplace assessment.

A student is granted a ‘competent’ result for the whole unit of competency when they have met all assessment criteria of the unit (i.e., achieved ‘satisfactory’ in each assessment task of the unit).

A student is granted a ‘fail/not yet competent’ result when they have attempted all assessment tasks for the unit and have been assessed as ‘not satisfactory’ in one or more tasks, following resubmission attempts.

The determination of competency must be completed by an appropriately qualified CIT educator and cannot be outsourced to a third party.

Educators must declare any conflicts of interest to the Head of Department, who will organise an alternative process of assessment for the affected student.

Educators must provide specific, timely, supportive, regular and constructive feedback to students to support their learning progress. Feedback must be communicated through formal CIT communication channels, for example CIT email or the Learning Management System (eLearn) (if the department does not have generic department email, CC infoline@cit.edu.au to ensure the communication is added to the Customer Relationship Management system).

Failure to achieve a ‘satisfactory’ result within an enrolment period will result in a ‘competency not achieved/fail’ outcome for that unit. A student may be required to re-enrol in the next enrolment period to repeat the unit.

Through a quality review, where there is evidence of academic misconduct after the fact, and a satisfactory result has been recorded, CIT reserves the right to review the determination of competency. The student will be contacted and be offered academic advice, and the satisfactory result will be removed pending further investigation (refer: Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy and Procedure).

3.7 Assessment judgements

Educators must make criterion-referenced assessment judgements; marking with percentages is not acceptable.

Students will receive timely and detailed written feedback on their assessment submissions within ten (10) working days of the due date, indicating whether they are competent, not yet competent, or need to resubmit. Where possible and appropriate, assessment feedback will be provided through eLearn in the first instance.

Students may be awarded a modified grade on the recommendation of the Disability Education Advisor.

Students will be provided with the opportunity to request an assessment or re-assessment extension. Extensions are granted at the discretion of the Head of Department. When granting an extension, consideration will be given to the student’s individual circumstance including any feedback from the Student Support team (where relevant). Extension due dates that extend past the end of a semester must be finalised within the first two weeks of the following semester (refer: Resulting Policy).

3.8 Graded assessment

CIT will make available graded assessment for qualifications at AQF level 5 or above, where there is evidence that:

• industry uses evidence of assessment performance in employment selection processes and requests CIT provide such evidence
• grading is important for a major piece or capstone assessment task
• a graded result is required by a higher education qualification, an ELICOS course or a higher education articulation agreement that specifies a graded subject
• grading was approved during development of a course of study and was implemented on the Student Management System with the correct grading mode.

CIT assessors will establish competency before a grade is applied in eLearn.

3.9 Post-assessment validation

A reliable sample of assessment judgements will be validated against the requirements of the unit of competency selected for validation, including the Principles of Assessment and Rules of Evidence, to confirm assessment judgements are being made correctly and consistently.

Assessment validation is undertaken by appropriately qualified people, and a validation report is completed for each training product at least once every five years (refer: Assessment Validation Policy and Procedure).

3.10 Business Practices

CIT assessment practices will:

• meet business requirements to enter final results in the Student Management System
• issue certification documents (qualifications and statements of attainment) only to students who are assessed as meeting the requirements of the nationally recognised training product
• securely retain all completed student assessment items, assessment tools, evidence of reasonable adjustment and evidence of the assessment judgements in accordance with relevant legislation and CIT policies. If the assessment task cannot be retained (e.g., perishable item/workplace materials), evidence retained must be sufficiently detailed to explain the circumstances leading to the assessor’s judgement of the student’s performance against the required competency. Retention requirements will vary.

3.11 Responsibilities

3.11.1 Academic Council

Academic Council is responsible for:

• ensuring courses and programs are designed and delivered in accordance with CIT’s academic policies and relevant legislation and standards
• overseeing the Program Review and Improvement (PRI) cycle and assessment validation program
• monitoring the Continuous Improvement Register (CIR)
• evaluating the effectiveness of the five-year PRI and validation cycle
• regularly monitoring the education application of AI at CIT via regular College and Division reports to Academic Council on the use and issues of AI within education at CIT.

3.11.2 Teaching and Learning Quality Committee

Teaching and Learning Quality Committee is responsible for:

• overseeing program quality management, teaching and learning, quality assurance and compliance management practices, and making recommendations to Academic Council
• reviewing and endorsing Teaching and Assessment Strategies (TAS)
• overseeing the design and development of the new course development
• facilitating the optimisation of AI within learning content, supporting student outcomes and assessment enhancements.

3.11.3 Executive Director, Education Futures and Students

The Executive Director, Education Futures and Students is responsible for:

• chairing the Academic Council, which is responsible for oversight of academic delivery, assessment and quality assurance
• ensuring the assessment system aligns with requirements in the Standards for RTOs
• reporting relevant matters to the Executive Management Committee (EMC)
• overseeing the monitoring of AI from advice and reports from Academic Council, Colleges and Division Leads.

3.11.4 Education Design and Delivery Lead

The Education Design and Delivery Lead (EDD Lead) is responsible for:

• ensuring assessment practices are aligned to the Standards for RTOs, training package requirements, legislative requirements, and CIT policies and procedures
• ensuring CIT training and assessment strategies are responsive to industry and student needs
• reporting to Academic Council and other CIT governance committees.

3.11.5 College Directors

College Directors are responsible for:

• ensuring assessment practices are aligned to the Standards for RTOs, training package requirements, legislative requirements, and CIT policies and procedures
• systematically validating assessment practices and assessment tools and continuous improvement
• fostering positive relationships with industry and stakeholders through organising and leading Industry Advisory Groups (IAGs)
• providing sufficient, accurate and accessible information to ensure selection of the most suitable training and assessment pathways across the college portfolio
• ensuring assessment is designed and developed:
  • in accordance with the Principles of Assessment and the Rules of Evidence
  • to include reasonable adjustment to minimise disadvantage to individuals or groups, without compromising the integrity of the competency standard
  • leading quality assessment based on the principles of universal design for learning, inclusivity and equity
• facilitating and encouraging educator innovation in assessment, including the effective use of technology-enhanced approaches, such as AI tools
• identification of opportunities for collaboration across departments, colleges and divisions in the implementation of continuous improvement plans
• overseeing the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of program and project delivery
• ensuring the storage of student assessments in accordance with legislative, regulatory and CIT policy requirements.

3.11.3 Heads of Department

Heads of Department are responsible for:

• leading the planning and designing of assessment including:
  • completing an annual review of all Training and Assessment Strategies (TAS)
  • quality reviews of all assessments, whether written, purchased or obtained from other sources, prior to first delivery
  • ensuring assessment meets the Principles of Assessment and the Rules of Evidence
  • ensuring quality assessment is based on the principles of universal design for learning, inclusivity and equity
  • leading educators to compile information for students on the context and purpose of the assessment and the assessment process, including pre-assessment information, through course materials distributed at the commencement of a course
  • ensuring all resources are available for assessment
  • writing an assessment rubric where the subject is approved for graded assessment
• ensuring all marketing material includes information about mandatory student industry placement requirements for assessment
• ensuring all assessors meet the requirements of the training product and the Standards for RTOs: Credential Policy (refer: Educator Currency and Competency Policy)
• ensuring all assessment evidence is retained in accordance with other policies, legislation or regulations (refer: Records Management Policy)
• participating in scheduled validation of assessment and continuous improvement (refer: Assessment Validation Policy)
• supporting educator innovation in assessment, including the effective use of technology-enhanced approaches, such as AI tools
• ensuring educators maintain industry currency in emerging technologies, including AI, and incorporate relevant learning opportunities into courses as allowed by unit and Training Package guidelines
• promoting AI-related professional development and training opportunities, and in SMD discussions
• where a student disagrees with the assessment outcome, consulting the policy for conditions available for reassessment and determine whether to provide a reassessment of the outcome by another assessor (refer: Academic Appeals Policy).

3.11.7 Head of Department Program Services

The Head of Department Program Services is responsible for:

• reviewing all assessments prior to delivery of the first session to ensure all requirements of the training product, and other regulatory and licensing requirements are met
• co-designing assessment strategies and assessment tools with Heads of Department and educators
• providing advice to Heads of Department and educators about high quality teaching and assessment practices.

3.11.8 Head of Department Education Quality

The Head of Department Education Quality is responsible for:

• providing support for assessment validation
• managing the CIT Validation Schedule
• managing CIT Scope of Registration training product quality reviews
• managing CIT assessment quality reviews identified on the academic risk register using a risk analysis approach.

3.11.9 Educators

Educators are responsible for:

• planning, designing and developing assessments
• participating in quality reviewing all assessment prior to delivery of the first session to ensure all requirements of the training product, and other regulatory and licensing requirements are met
• conducting and reviewing assessment including:
  • that assessments reflect the requirements of the training products and industry
  • informing students, at or prior to the commencement of delivery, of the assessment approach and requirements for the training product
  • informing students prior to enrolment of any mandatory industry student placement requirements for assessment
  • applying any reasonable adjustment strategies required to meet student needs and record this in the assessment tool
  • ensuring students understand the ethical use of AI tools and are aware of the consequences of misuse, including academic misconduct (refer: Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy)
  • maintaining industry currency in emerging technologies, including AI, and incorporate relevant learning opportunities into courses and assessment practices—where allowed by unit and Training Package guidelines—such as using AI to replicate authentic workplace tasks
  • providing sufficient detail in the observation checklist (in the comments section) to support the competency judgement
  • reviewing written assessments for any evidence of cheating or plagiarism and managing any suspected academic misconduct
  • reviewing completed assessment evidence against assessment criteria in the Teacher Guide to determine competency
  • determining competency, recording assessment outcomes and providing relevant feedback to the student within ten (10) days of the assessment due date
  • recording final assessment results in the LMS within fifteen (15) days of the end of unit date
  • participating in assessment validation
  • declaring any conflict of assessment in the assessment process
  • entering all assessment results in a timely manner and entering the final result in the SMS (refer: Resulting Policy).

4. Documentation

4.1 Related Legislation/Regulation

• Standards for RTOs
• ACT Quality Framework
• Student Information Guide
• Territory Records (Records Disposal Schedule - Student Management Records)

4.2 Related Policy and Procedures

• Assessment Procedure
• Academic Advice and Issuance of Certification Procedure
• Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy
• Assessment Validation Policy
• Student and Community Members Complaint Policy
• Educator Currency and Competency Policy
• Industry and Community Engagement (Training and Assessment) Procedure
• Privacy Policy
• Recognition of Prior Learning Procedure
• Records Management Policy
• Resulting Policy
• Training and Assessment Strategy (TAS) Development Policy
• Training and Assessment Policy

4.3 Related Documents

• CIT Course Validation Schedule
• ASQA Guide to Assessment Tools
• Interview Assessment Cover Sheet & Template
• Observation Practical Assessment Cover Sheet & Template
• Portfolio Assessment Cover Sheet & Template
• Third Party Evidence Report Template
• Written Assessment Cover Sheet and Template

5. Definitions

All terminology used in this policy is consistent with definitions in the CIT Definitions of Terms.

6. Policy Contact Officer

Chief Executive Officer CIT

Contact CIT Student Services on (02) 6207 3188 or email infoline@cit.edu.au for further information.

7. Procedures

This policy is implemented through the associated procedures. Authority to make changes to the procedures rests with the policy owner.