The forms of assessment used throughout the university are diverse and properly vary according to the academic discipline. It would be inappropriate for a university policy on assessment to contain detailed prescriptions; but all faculties and departments shall explore the appropriate interpretation of these principles in their disciplines or fields and be able to demonstrate the reasonableness of their practices in relation to the principles.
3.1.1 The university recognises the importance of both the summative and formative functions of its assessment regimes and the need to make a clear distinction between them. Care shall be taken that the need to grade students does not conflict with the important educative role that assessment can perform in both presaging to students the kinds of intellectual engagement desired and in providing feedback as to their performance. The role to be performed by individual assessment tasks shall be made clear to students from the outset.
3.1.2 Assessment tasks devised for a course or subject shall reflect in scope and depth the stated objectives for that course or subject.
3.1.3 It is expected that staff responsible for course and subject development demonstrate professional expertise in devising modes of assessment which accurately reflect the relevant educational objectives, which suit the particular assessment function and which are in tune with the style of presentation adopted for the subject matter.
3.1.4 All descriptions of subjects in the faculty handbooks shall contain a statement of assessment requirements, in the form of a list of items and their percentage weightings. In subject booklets and/or handouts, students shall be informed in writing of other details including topics, submission dates, word limits and requirements for presentation. If there is provision for some negotiation of assessment tasks (for example, allowing students to nominate topics), the procedures for this negotiation shall be clearly stated.
3.1.5 Beyond the formal requirements relating to length, weighting, submission dates, presentation etc, students shall be given clear indications of what is expected of them in assessment tasks and the criteria by which performance will be judged.
3.1.6 If students submit work by the due date, they shall receive feedback on their work in time for them to benefit in preparing for the next task. Consonant with this general principle, individual faculties (or, where more appropriate, departments) shall nominate a period of time within which work is normally returned to students, and inform students of this commitment in subject outlines. Feedback to students shall be constructive, focused on assisting them to understand how they can improve the quality of their work. (This requirement does not apply to final examinations.)
3.1.7 The university shall support and encourage discussions within and between faculties and departments for ensuring that units of equal value in their contribution to a degree or other award are perceived as making comparable summative assessment demands on students (see section 5 `Student workload').
3.1.8 At undergraduate level, student performance in individual subjects shall be graded with the nomenclature, high distinction, distinction, credit, pass, fail. At honours level, grades shall be awarded in the categories of first class honours, second class honours (divisions A and B) and third class honours. Across the university, these grades shall have comparable meanings, in terms of percentage marks and, more importantly, in terms of broadly defined levels of achievement. Data relating to the distributions of grades across the university and over time will be collected and circulated regularly, to encourage analysis and discussion of any differences in the patterns. Faculties are also encouraged to compare their grade distributions with those of similar faculties in other institutions.
3.1.9 In applying the university's policy relating to students with learning and other disabilities and to students under disadvantage, there shall be no diminution or distortion of academic and professional objectives as a result of any accommodation in the assessment regime.
3.1.10 The rights of students to have assessed work re-marked shall be determined at faculty and department level, with reference to the work and time involved for staff. However, each faculty must have a process (reported to, and approved by, Academic Board) for verifying fail marks which contribute to a final fail result.[*] The Academic Board shall ensure that these procedures are reasonably consistent across faculties. This requirement shall not apply to pieces of work completed during the course of a subject each of which is worth no more than 10 per cent of the final mark, unless the total of such pieces exceeds 30 per cent of the final mark. These pieces of work must be identified in advance of the first assessment in the subject.
3.1.11 Faculties shall publish in their handbooks statements defining and explaining the nature of plagiarism as it applies to their fields/disciplines. If these statements are amplified by more specific departmental statements, the handbook entry should alert students to their availability. Faculty and departmental statements must be consistent with relevant university legislation, at present Statute 4.1 - Discipline.
3.1.12 Responsibilities relating to assessment shall be indicated in the role statements of all relevant staff and committees throughout the university.
[*]** An existing university regulation requires that `No candidate may be failed in a subject except on the recommendation of at least two examiners' (6.6). The regulations will be redrafted to conform with the new policy.
| Published by Monash University, Clayton, Victoria
3168 Copyright © Monash University 1996 - All Rights Reserved - Caution Authorised by the Academic Registrar December 1996 |