assessment policy

policies & procedures

page 38

abn 49 066 809 612 10 january 2011 © cornerstone community inc

assessment policy policy

Cornerstone Community Incorporated is committed to maintaining an appropriate, equitable, consistent and educationally sound approach to assessment in all courses and units it offers. Assessments will comply with all requirements specified in the AQTF 2010,6

procedures

in the relevant national training packages (where they apply) and in the specific units.

1. Appropriate Communication

The Unit Convenor will communicate the assessment strategies, weighting and timing for the unit to all participants soon after the unit commences.

2. Appropriate Strategies

The courses and units require a variety of assessment strategies to cater for the range and nature of competencies developed.

• Assessment strategies to be utilised may include where appropriate:

o submission of materials/items prepared for a set task, project or activity

o verbal and/or written presentations of prepared material to a given audience

o development and participation in an individual or group task, activity or project under observation by an assessor

o interview and/or questioning by an assessor(s) o contributions to discussions, role plays and/or debates o self-assessment in dialogue with a tutor or assessor o peer assessment o submission of written papers, reflective journals or

folios of work o written examinations, presenting multiple choice, short

answer and extended answer questions as appropriate o other validated strategies

• Specific assessment strategies, methods, tools and processes must comply with the principles of assessment; that is assessment processes must be:

o valid – all components and aspects of the unit have been adequately addressed in the assessment activities;

6 AQTF Essential Conditions and Standards for Continuing Registration (2010)


page 39


o reliable – the strategies, methods and tools will result in a consistent and accurate outcome;

o flexible – the candidate/s have opportunity to negotiate certain aspects of their assessment;

o fair – the assessment will not disadvantage any particular candidate/s.

• When making judgements regarding competence, assessors must consider the rules of evidence:

o valid – the evidence must relate to the unit of competency;

o sufficient – the evidence adequately addresses all components and aspects of the unit, and demonstrates competency over time and in different contexts;

o authentic –the evidence can be verified as the candidate/s’ own work;

o current – the evidence demonstrates the candidate’s current knowledge and skills.

• Assessment is to be subject to validation processes:

o assessment strategies, methods, tools and processes will be reviewed against the relevant requirements;

o to this end, the Director of Training will facilitate the development of ‘standard assessment packages’ (that have been reviewed and validated by experienced staff with a standard validation kit) for all units;

o assessors will be directed to use the relevant standard assessment packages for their units;

o where they make any modifications (for example, making allowable adjustments to address particular needs of their candidate/s), they will use the standard validation kit to confirm the assessments still fulfil the AQTF principles of assessment and rules of evidence.

• Assessors (and those developing the standard assessment packages for these courses) will typically aim to:

o integrate assessment across units where appropriate, and to integrate the assessment events with both the learning experience and the common vocational contexts of Christian ministry and mission.

o limit the number of assessment items or events, to avoid unnecessary pressure on both staff and candidates and the ‘flattening’ effects of over-assessment.

• Assessment of outcomes will be done soon after the period of training related to those outcomes.


page 40


• It is not usually appropriate to evaluate a participant’s competence by assessment criteria until the training related to those criteria is complete. There are exceptions to this; for example, a project which is integrated with the learning strategies of a unit may become an assessment item upon completion.

• In units incorporating any on-the-job components, the Unit Convenor will implement an appropriate assessment and marking strategy, monitoring both on-the-job and off-the-job training and assessment to ensure integration and equity.

3. Appropriate Volume

• The volume of assessment for a unit is to be proportional to the nominal duration, representing 5-10% of the total hours.

• The following outline will be used as a guide for the magnitude of various assessment strategies which may be utilised in units for the Certificate III – Advanced Diploma courses. For every 15 hours of nominal duration, one of the following strategies would be appropriate: o preparation and delivery of a 6-20 minute oral

presentation (assessment may be based on both the presentation and submitted notes)

o production of a resource for relevant ministry events, ranging from Youth Group devotions and Scripture Classes to sermons and adult Bible studies.

o assessment by a verbal interview of 15-40 minutes duration

o written assessment/s amounting to a total of 500-1500 words

o assessment by a written examination of 30-60 minutes duration

A combination of these strategies may be utilised by teachers, particularly with larger units. The participants may also be given choices regarding alternative assessment strategies where appropriate.

Where an assessment task is effectively

4. Appropriate Marking / Grading

incorporated into the learning strategy of the unit, it may exceed the time and volume outlined above.

• Assessment for all competency units should produce an unambiguous and documented outcome of ‘Competent’ or ‘Not Yet Competent’, in compliance with AQTF principles.

• This will be the only outcome recorded for ‘Christian Spirituality’ (CS) and ‘Christian Ministry Skills’ (MS) units, and


page 41


for National Training Package units imported into the ‘Christian Studies’ courses.

• For the other units developed by Cornerstone Community (‘Interpret & Apply the Bible Today’ (AB) and ‘Contemporary Challenges’ (C) units) in which levels of competence can be validly differentiated, assessors will also determine and record a ‘graded’ outcome for each candidate.

• Transcripts and Statements of Attainment awarded to students will comply with the AQF Certification Guideline and hence will only include a list of successfully completed units without any grades. The ‘graded’ outcomes for AB and CC units will be stored in the students’ records by Cornerstone Community and provided on a separate document.

• In the ‘graded’ units, submitted items and tasks will be assessed according to the performance criteria in the unit outline and more generic criteria such as:

o Presentation For example, has the participant organised and presented his/her material legibly in an acceptable format, taking reasonable care with spelling, grammar and clarity?

o Preparation For example, how thoroughly has the candidate prepared themselves and their resources?

o Relevance How thoroughly has the candidate addressed all relevant issues and materials?

o Coherence How clearly, logically and/or persuasively has the candidate presented his/her material and/or ideas?

o Originality How clearly has the candidate demonstrated initiative, creativity and evidence of research where appropriate?

o Analysis How clearly has the candidate demonstrated the capacity where required to critically appraise and compare existing concepts and processes?

• These ‘graded’ units have criteria which require the participant to ‘discuss’, ‘investigate’, ‘evaluate’, ‘formulate’, ‘explain’, ‘analyse’ and so on, and it is certainly possible to identify performances that demonstrate not only ‘competence’ but also a ‘high level of competence’, and even ‘mastery’. The generic marking criteria and standards used relate to the requirements of the unit and provide a basis for validly differentiating between levels of achievement.


page 42


• The generic marking criteria and standards will typically be identified at the beginning of the unit and reiterated when each assessment method/event is presented to the candidates, with reference to the relevant unit requirements.

• These generic criteria will be weighted according to its significance in the competencies being assessed, as indicated by the requirements of the unit. For example, in an assessment from the first half of the Certificate IV, foundational criteria such as ‘Preparation’ and ‘Completion’ may be weighted more than advanced criteria of ‘Originality’ and ‘Analysis’, though these may still be included with some weighting as recognised elements of competency.

• The feedback for graded assessments will include a grid of results which indicates: o the fulfilment of performance criteria in the unit (that is

‘competent’ or ‘not yet competent’); o the standard the student achieved in each marking

criterion; o a summative result for the assessment as a whole.

• When marking against these generic criteria, a numeric scale will be used to indicate the ‘standard’ achieved (in relation to the unit assessment criteria) by the participant in each criterion:

5 – Excellent / Mastery 4 – Very good / High level of competence 3 – Adequate / Competent 2 – Inadequate / Not yet competent 1 – Very inadequate / Very poor performance NA – Not Assessable

Hence, it is clear to both teachers and participants what level of competence or adequacy in a particular criterion is indicated by, for example, 3 out of 5 (or 9 out of 15, or 12 out of 20). These standards apply in all graded assessments in the course.

• The total percentage mark and ‘grade’ for these units will be reported in their training records using the following scale:

HD High Distinction 85% or greater, & all assessment criteria fulfilled

D Distinction Between 75 – 85% & all assessment criteria fulfilled

C Credit Between 65 – 75% & all assessment criteria fulfilled

P Pass / Competent Between 50 – 65% & all assessment criteria fulfilled

F Fail / Not Yet Competent Less than 50% / all assessment criteria not fulfilled


page 43


• As stated above, the percentage marks and grades will not

5. Appropriate Review

be listed on the Transcripts and Statements of Attainment awarded to students. They will only be provided on a separate document for reference by the student and other interested stakeholders (such as employers or other training organizations).

• Students will be given opportunity to give feedback regarding assessment after each unit using the standard evaluation form.

• Assessment strategies and methods will be subject to review as described in the “Quality Control” procedures.

• The policy and procedures for academic appeal (see ‘Academic Appeals’ policy) will facilitate review in response to complaints.

assessment policy

Documents