Assessment Policy

1. Purpose

This policy describes mandatory requirements for assessment practices at Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT), to ensure compliance with the Standards for RTOs.

2. Scope

Where this policy refers to CIT, this includes CIT Solutions.

This policy applies to:

all nationally recognised vocational education and training products
all assessment tools and instruments
assessment conducted as part of recognition of prior learning (RPL).

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 Standards for RTOs.

CIT assessment practices are part of an overall assessment system, which:

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)
provides opportunities to undertake assessment online, where possible and appropriate
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)
enables industry experts to assist in the assessment judgement, working alongside the assessor to conduct the assessment
identifies and manages 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 for courses in the Training and Education Training Package (TAE), specified in the 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.

Assessment processes will ensure students have sufficient time to learn, practice and consolidate the skills and knowledge 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.

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
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.

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, 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 nationally accredited 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 conduct that assessment. 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 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 an appropriately qualified panel, 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

3.11.1Academic 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.

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.

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).

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
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 nationally accredited 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)
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 nationally accredited 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 nationally accredited training product, and other regulatory and licensing requirements are met
conducting and reviewing assessment including:
- that assessments reflect the requirements of the nationally accredited training products and industry
- informing students, at or prior to the commencement of delivery, of the assessment approach and requirements for the nationally accredited 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
- 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
Standards for Registered Training Organisations Amendment (VET Workforce Support) Instrument 2024
ACT Quality Framework
Student Information Guide
Territory Records (Records Disposal Schedule - Student Management Records)

4.2 Related Policy and Procedures

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.

Assessment instrument	Documentation developed by an assessor to capture evidence of competence including questions, activities, observation checklists, templates and proformas.
Assessment Quality review	Assessment quality reviews are part of CIT’s quality evaluation process. Assessment quality reviews examine assessment tools to ensure they are fit for purpose, meet the unit of competency, reflect the TAS and have suitably trained educators delivering and assessing.
Assessment tools	Combination of the assessment instruments with the instructions for students and assessors and will include context and conditions of assessment, tasks to be administered to the student, an outline of the evidence to be gathered and the evidence criteria used to judge the quality of performance.
Assessment authentication	The assessor is assured that the evidence presented for assessment is the student’s own work. The authentication strategies may include: Ensure that evidence gathered ‘belongs’ to the student being assessed and provides evidence of that person’s skills and knowledge. An assessment coversheet is completed by the student and attached to the actual assessment work to confirm the authenticity of their work. Where submission occurs via eLearn, the assessment coversheet is integrated as part of the submission process. Where portions of the evidence submitted are gathered through independent study (e.g., assignments or projects) rather than through direct observation, use Turnitin (or other online systems) to review work submissions for plagiarism and identical content in other submissions.
Competency	The consistent application of knowledge and skills to the standard of performance required in the workplace. It embodies the ability to transfer and apply skills and knowledge to new situations and environments.
Conflict of Interest	In this Policy means an educator who has or has had a significant personal or other relationship with the student being assessed, which could improperly influence the assessment decision.
Industry Experts	Industry expert means an individual who has relevant specialised industry or subject matter expertise who is engaged by the RTO on the basis of that expertise. Industry experts must have relevant vocational competencies and have current industry skills directly relevant to the training and assessment being provided.
Pre-delivery assessment review	Also known as Pre-delivery validation. Assessment tools are reviewed prior to use to ensure assessments are conducted consistent with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence, including: the Training Product and legislative, regulatory and licensing obligations. The outcome of the review informs changes to the assessment tools. CIT will validate review all assessment resources including new and re‑developed training products, whether purchased or designed internally, pre‑delivery using Pre-delivery assessment review form for: new TAS documents, for the delivery of new courses, including additions to the Scope of Registration new TAS documents where courses are transitioning to new qualifications and: all non-equivalent units will need to be redeveloped and then validated new courses including where courses are transitioning to new qualifications, and new units, while deemed equivalent, may have changes to assessment conditions existing assessment tools modified through a review process new assessment tools developed internally assessment resources acquired or purchased from a third party including from other TAFE Institutes. Refer: *Assessment Validation Policy and Procedure*
Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness	Natural justice also called procedural fairness, applies to any decision (action or inaction) that can affect the rights, interests or expectations of an individual in a direct or immediate way. It requires that: individuals are given an opportunity to be heard decision makers act without bias or self-interest decision makers base their decisions on evidence that is relevant to the facts in issue.
Qualified Educator	Educators who: hold the required credentials specified in the Standards for RTOs Credential Policy have the relevant vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered and/or assessed have current industry skills directly relevant to the training and assessment being provided have current knowledge and skills in vocational training and learning that informs their training and assessment.
Risk analysis approach	Is a review to identify academic risk to courses through a number processes including but not limited to: Referring to the ASQA risk priorities Environmental scans Internal and external audits Student cohorts, i.e., number of international students in a course Industries with high Work Health and Safety (WHS) risk Student and industry feedback
Validation	Validation is a quality review process for completed assessments that confirms the assessment system can consistently produce valid assessment judgements. Validation involves reviewing the assessment tool produces valid, reliable, sufficient, current, and authentic evidence to enable reasonable judgements to be made as to whether the requirements of the training package or VET accredited courses are met.

6. Policy Contact Officer

Director, Education Services.

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.

POLICY INFORMATION

Policy No: CIT2024/613
Approved: January 2028
Next Review: January 2027
Category: Training Policies
Policy Owner: Executive Director, Education Futures and Students

PROCEDURES/DOWNLOADS

Assessment Procedure
(PDF File 301.3 KB)

Recognition of Prior Learning Procedure
(PDF File 274.0 KB)