Policy Number 3.30.1
Contact Officer: Senior Manager, Student Administration
Date Approved by Senate: 30/11/2009
Date of Last Amendment: 30/11/2009
Date for Next Review: 30/11/2012 
Related policies: 3.10.13, 3.20.9, 3.30.3, 3.40.1, 3.40.7, 3.40.15

 

In November 2007, Senate approved a revised set of General Award Rules governing assessment and examinations. Senate (27 March 2008) approved a revised assessment policy which consolidates policies and procedures relevant to assessment and examination into a single policy statement.

This policy should be read in conjunction with the General Award Rules (Part 1A – Assessment) and, unless otherwise stated, applies to all forms of assessment.
 

Assessment serves a range of purposes including the (i) development of student learning (formative), (ii) making of judgements about student learning (summative) and (iii) monitoring of student learning as a measure of teaching effectiveness (evaluation). This policy provides the compulsory framework within which assessment activities are to be managed.
 

A first principle is that all assessment, whether graded or not, should be seen as formative. A second principle is that students should be given the opportunity to develop as a result of such feedback, and that this should be reflected in the weighting given to and timing of summative assessment across the semester. Providing feedback to students on their progress throughout a course of study is critical to improving student learning.
 

Matters relating specifically to summative assessment have been defined to ensure that equitable and transparent processes are applied.
 

The University of Queensland uses criterion-referenced assessment as the method to explicitly define the relationships between summative assessment and the (i) learning objectives, (ii) standards to be met (iii) performance expectations held of students, and (iv) award of grades. In criterion referenced assessment, judgments about the quality of students’ performance are made by reference to predetermined criteria and standards and not by reference to the achievement of other students. The following definitions apply:

All necessary information about summative assessment is listed in the course profile (see HUPP 3.20.9). This will include the amount, form and deadlines for assessment, the criteria and standards to be applied to each assessment item, the relative importance (e.g. weighting) of individual assessment pieces, circumstances under which extensions might be granted, the penalties for non-compliance (e.g. penalties for late submission, exceeding word limits), and how results for each assessment piece are aggregated to yield a final grade. Information about assessment is generally not changed after the first week of the teaching period.

Note that the timeframe for extensions to assessment must be consistent with the General Award Rules governing finalisation of results.

Where more that one tutor/lecturer is involved in providing information to students about assessment requirements, the course coordinator must ensure that consistent information is provided.
 

More than one form of summative assessment must be used in a course (e.g. essay, oral presentation, written examination, multiple choice examination, journal article, laboratory report, literature review, practical performance). A thesis and other large forms of assessment (e.g. designs and inquiry based projects) are regarded as including multiple forms of assessment.
 

Unless the assessment is both the process and product (e.g. thesis, design project), no single item of summative assessment in a course may contribute more than 70% of the total summative assessment for the course. In addition, assessment tasks should be substantially different from that set in the three most recent settings unless the design of the task is such that prior knowledge of the assessment task cannot affect student performance.

Information about timing of assessment, including during the teaching and revision periods, is located in the General Award Rules, (Part 1A – Assessment).
 

Where practical, the examiner should not be aware of the student's identity. It is recognised that there are some instances where this cannot occur (e.g. oral examinations, very small classes).
 

Negative marking in multiple choice examinations, that is the practice of deducting marks for providing incorrect answers or formula marking to correct for guessing, is not permitted. Also, deducting marks for failure to undertake a specified task that is not part of the summative assessment is not permitted (e.g. taking off marks for not attending tutorials).
 

Moderation is defined in the literature as:
"a process for developing consistency or comparability of assessment judgements and applies in a range of assessment contexts" (based on Sadler, 1998)[1]:

While consideration should be given to all aspects of moderation (especially in the context of Academic Program Reviews), the minimum routine requirement for course coordinators at the University of Queensland is that moderation of all assessment be undertaken:

 

This section (4.8) applies to all forms of summative assessment which take place in a supervised environment at an approved university location, is the work of a single student and for which authentication of the student’s identity is required. It pertains to both central and school-based examination and includes written, invigilated assessment but not, for example, unsupervised online assessment.
 

Examinations held in the end of semester examination period and during the special and supplementary examination periods, for which the administration and conduct are managed by Examinations section, are classified as central examinations.

Examinations held (i) during the teaching periods or (ii) during the end of semester examination period for which a school takes responsibility for administration and conduct of the examination are classified as school-based examinations.

In most instances school-based examinations scheduled during the teaching period are held within scheduled classes except as specified in the General Award Rules. However, in order to avoid timetable clashes, school-based examinations held outside of scheduled classes are timetabled by Examinations section.

Mid-semester school-based examinations held outside scheduled classes (e.g. on Saturdays) are permitted only in the circumstances as outlined below, and require the prior approval of the President of the Academic Board. A case to do so is made through the relevant Associate Dean Teaching and Learning. The following criteria apply -

Examiners should be present at the commencement of an examination to answer questions in relation to possible errors or ambiguity in the question paper. If this is not possible, examiners must arrange for another staff member to attend or provide Examinations Section with their contact telephone number.

 

Students are expected to be available to undertake their examinations at the time scheduled and at the campus where they normally attend classes.

Off campus examinations are generally not available for the end of semester examination period. In exceptional circumstances, internally enrolled students may be allowed to undertake examination off campus at the same time as other enrolled students, with the student paying for the venue, supervision and associated administrative costs.

Off campus examinations are available in the following cases – (i) Semester 1 special and supplementary examination period for non-returning students only and (ii) for all Semester 2 special and supplementary examinations. The student is required to meet the costs as set out in the Fee Rules.
 

Students arriving for an examination more than 30 minutes after the start of working time (as specified in the General Award Rules (Part 1A - Assessment) are not be permitted to sit the examination. If the reason for the late arrival would entitle the student to a special examination, they may apply accordingly.
 

The front cover of the examination paper lists details of any additional material or equipment that is authorised for use by students during the examination (see permitted materials below). Material or equipment brought into the examination room that is not on the list of permitted materials may be treated as “unauthorised material” under Statute No 4 (Student Discipline and Misconduct).

Note that -
 

The following paragraphs describe types of examinations with respect to materials that may or may not be permitted in an examination room.
 

Students may be allowed access to either English, foreign language, or dual language dictionaries at the discretion of the examiner.

A student may bring a dictionary (in paper form and unannotated) into an examination, provided that it is on the list of permitted materials. For the purposes of this provision, unannotated means the dictionary must not be marked with handwriting, other than personal identification, or with printed material(s) attached to or interleaved with the original. Highlighting and/or underlining will not be regarded as annotation under this provision.

During the examination material brought into the examination room will be checked by a supervisor to confirm that it is permitted. If the material is deemed to be not permitted (e.g. contains annotations when none are permitted), the materials may be treated as unauthorised material under Statute No 4 (Student Discipline and Misconduct).

 

The General Award Rules (Part 1A - Assessment) detail the availability of special examinations including the application timelines and the range of dates for special examinations.

For examinations held in the end of semester examination period, applications must be lodged with the Student Centre on the St Lucia, Ipswich or Gatton Campus and not with the faculty or school. In these cases, the Manager (Examinations) may approve applications for special examinations on medical grounds.  Medical Certificates should not be provided by a near relative or close associate of the student. All other applications, including those that cannot be approved by the Manager, are referred to the responsible faculty for consideration and a decision. Students are notified of the outcome of their application by email.
 

For the purposes of the General Award Rules, students are given special examinations for medical or compassionate reasons. Medical Certificates should not be provided by a near relative or close associate of the student. Special examinations are also generally granted –
 

Special examinations are not granted where the executive dean or head or school was not satisfied that the student took reasonable measures (steps) to avoid the circumstance that contributed to the student missing or failing to complete the examination.  These include:
 

As noted above, the course profile provides information regarding criteria and standards to be applied to all assessment items. This is provided to students at the beginning of the semester.
Timely feedback to students is provided on every item of summative assessment. Marks and/or grades are one component of such feedback. Timely feedback on assessment is crucial for students' learning. All progressive assessment completed by a student should be marked and useful feedback provided to the student in a timely manner.

Feedback can be delivered by a variety of methods including group discussion, continuous assessment, written comments on the student’s submitted work or on feedback sheets, model answers, lists of common mistakes, and/or peer and self-evaluation.

After the results have been finalised, students will, on request, be given an opportunity to peruse, under supervision, the following relating to end of semester examinations:
 

Where schools and faculties post marks on noticeboards including electronic noticeboards, individual results are to be listed by student number only.
 

Because more than one piece of assessment must be used in a course, it is necessary to aggregate results from individual assessment pieces to determine the student’s final grade. The aggregation of results must be a deliberate process that is readily defensible and ensures the validity of judgments made about student performance.

The method of weighting and aggregating individual pieces of assessment and the method used to determine a final grade must be made explicit in the course profile. Percentages, marks, weighted grades, or profiling of standards across tasks may be used to determine the result for an individual piece of assessment or for calculating the final grade, provided that details (including any cut-offs) are published in the course profile.
 

Provisions governing finalisation of results, and changes to final results, are set out in the General Award Rules (Part 1A – Assessment). Once confirmed, students are advised of results on mySI-net.
The University’s grading system is set out in Appendix A.
 

Supplementary assessment should afford the eligible student a second opportunity to demonstrate that he/she has satisfied the learning requirements for the course.

The General Award Rules and some program rules detail the availability of supplementary assessment including the timelines for lodgement of requests and the range of dates supplementary assessment will be held.

The type of supplementary assessment given is at the discretion of the executive dean. Students are notified of the outcome of their application by email.

A grade of 4 is the highest grade that can be awarded in a course where supplementary assessment has been granted. It will be shown on the student record as xS4 (with ‘x’ being the grade awarded prior to supplementary assessment).
 

Results from special examinations and supplementary assessment must be finalised within seven (7) days of the examination/assessment date.
 

At times, a student may believe the mark awarded does not reflect his/her performance as measured against the published assessment criteria. In considering a request for a remark (reconsideration of a mark), faculties and schools must be mindful of equity matters relating to other students in the course. In all cases, the remark will replace the original mark in the calculation of the final grade which could be a higher or lower grade.

Correcting a mathematical error in the calculation of the final result is not a remark. Amendments to a final result because of (i) a mathematical error or (ii) non-inclusion of the marks from a piece of assessment are considered an administrative error and are submitted to the Academic Registrar, through the faculty, for approval to have the final result changed.

The procedures for remarking are set out below.
 

A remark is done only when—
 

The timing for remarking requests enables grades to be finalised by the ‘remark finalisation date’ as specified in the General Award Rules – Part 1A (Assessment).

Where marks are available before the commencement of the end of semester examination period, a request for remark is only considered if the request is submitted before the date of finalisation of results and no later than one month after the release of marks for that piece of assessment.

Where marks are available only after the commencement of the end of semester examination period, a request for remark is only considered if the request is submitted by the following dates: (i) for first semester results, by the first day after the second semester mid-semester recess; (ii) for second semester results, by the first day of first semester of the next year; and (iii) for summer semester results, by the first day after the first semester mid-semester recess.
 

If a student wishes to request a remark before the results are finalised the following procedures apply –
 

If a student requests a remark after the date of finalisation of results, the following procedures apply –

 

‘Release' means making copies of the question paper available from the school/centre or lodging copies of past examination question papers in the Library.

Students should have open access to past examination question papers, following the corresponding special and supplementary examination periods, unless determined otherwise by the Assessment Sub-Committee. Justification for withholding examination question papers must be based on educational grounds. The criteria for determining the circumstances in which examination question papers may be exempted from release and procedures to be followed to gain permission for withholding them is included in Appendix B.

 

The University’s Code of Conduct requires staff to avoid conflicts of interest. A potential conflict of interest exists when a near relative or close associate is enrolled in a course for which a staff member is involved the assessment or award of grades for the course.

The following principles apply –
 

If any doubt exists, the supervisor should contact the President of the Academic Board. Further consultation between the head of school and the President of the Academic Board may be necessary.
 

The University’s Student Grievance Resolution policy sets out the process to follow for assessment-related grievances.
 

The University's Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal and Academic Program Review policy includes a requirement to review and monitor assessment criteria, standards and practices. Details of assessment are reviewed for adequacy and educational soundness as part of curriculum review.

While the same high standard of quality assurance must apply for all assessment, quality control mechanisms may vary to take account of differences in programs. The University recognises the need to provide clear, comprehensive and transparent analysis and reporting of assessment practices within schools and faculties.

HUPP 3.10.13 Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal and Academic Program Review sets out responsibilities with respect to ensuring quality assurance in assessment.
 

Chief examiners play an important role in ensuring quality assurance in summative assessment. It is mandatory that heads of schools appoint an academic staff member as chief examiner for a school, discipline or a program, as appropriate.

The chief examiner should report to the Head of School, and in consultation with the School Teaching and Learning Committee, ensure:
 

In addition, the chief examiner will work with the Teaching and Learning Committee to ensure quality assurance in assessment in the school, including:

 

The following generic descriptors provide university-wide standards for awarding final grades. Course coordinators may develop criteria and standards for specific assessment tasks but the determination of the final grade must reflect the descriptors given below. Each passing grade subsumes and goes beyond the grades lower than it.

There may be some courses in which the course coordinator judges that the number of grades to discriminate among students' performances should be fewer than the seven normally used. If there is an essential level of competence all students must attain, but either it is of little significance whether they progress beyond it, or the distance they have progressed beyond it may be very difficult or even impossible to measure, it may be appropriate to use the non-graded pass (P) and the non-graded failure (N) [see General Award Rules].  Schools make a case to the executive dean to endorse the course being assessed on a pass/no pass basis.

The following are also used in certain circumstances:

 

The head of school must demonstrate to the Assessment Sub-Committee that there are exceptional circumstances that will significantly compromise the educational value of the examination if the examination question paper is released. For example, in cases where:

The following information will be taken into account in considering a request for exemption from release:

Account will also be taken of the procedures provided to help students prepare for the assessment and to give students feedback on their performance. Such procedures may include, for example, distributing and taking students through practice examinations, where explanation about the type of assessment and the reasons for correct and incorrect answers can be given. For examinations completed during the semester, this may include group or individual feedback about performance.

If the course coordinator wishes to prohibit access to the question paper, a case to the head of school is made. The head of school then determines each case for exemption, based on the criteria listed above.

Where exemption is approved, the head of school will, no later than the week prior to the beginning of the semester in which the course is to be offered, submit a report to the Assessment Sub-Committee containing a list of courses where the examination question paper has been exempted from release, and the justification for the decision. The school report should include the facts and information taken into account in reaching the decision.
The Chair of the Assessment Sub-Committee will review the application of the exemption criteria and, in cases where they consider the justification for exemption is inadequate, may, after consultation with the head of school, authorise the release of the examination question paper.
The relevant head of school is responsible to initiate annual confirmation that the educational basis on which the original judgment was made is unchanged, and will so notify to the Assessment Sub-Committee.
Where non-release of examination question papers is agreed, it is imperative for course coordinators to provide materials to help students prepare for the assessment and to give them feedback on their performance. This includes provision of exemplar examination questions that are in the same format, and cover the same learning objectives of the course.
Through heads of schools, course coordinators are responsible for making arrangements to ensure the security of the question paper so as not to undermine the decision to exempt the question paper from release.

B.3      Prohibited access to examination scripts
If exemption from release of a copy of an examination script is approved, the University's policy entitles a student to inspect both their script and the question paper, but not to make a copy.

Course coordinators who are granted exemption from the release of their examination question papers and who also wish to prohibit students from gaining a copy of their answers on the grounds that it is tantamount to providing access to the question papers must make a special case directly to the Assessment Subcommittee. They should be aware that, in the event of an FOI application, the onus to demonstrate that disclosure of an individual examination script would not be in the student's interest would be heavy.
 

B.4     Freedom of Information
Access to an examination question paper may be sought under the Queensland Freedom of Information legislation. A case for non-disclosure based on educational grounds must be consistent with the prima facie case that would need to be argued under the FOI Act. However, considerations favouring disclosure, such as the desirability of providing students with feedback, will also be taken into account in determining whether an examination question paper should be disclosed under the Act. Course coordinators should take such factors into account when making internal application for exemption under these guidelines.
 

B.5      Retention and disposal of examination papers and uncollected student assignments
Unless otherwise authorised by the President of the Academic Board, completed examination scripts and uncollected student assignments must be retained for a minimum of 12 months from the date of certification of results by the appropriate certifying authority. Where results are disputed or other administrative requirements such as Freedom of Information or pending legal action must be dealt with, scripts and uncollected assignments will need to be held until the matter is determined or any available appeal avenues are exhausted. At the date the matter is finally determined, the standard requirement to retain examination scripts for a minimum of a further 12 months applies. Completed scripts and uncollected assignments should be held in a secure location with restricted access. Destruction of scripts should be by confidential means.

 

[1]Sadler, R. (1998, July). "Letting students into the secret: Further steps in making criteria and standards work to improve learning." Proceedings of conference (pp. 41± 48). Brisbane: Board of Senior Secondary School Studies.

[2]Note that the highest grade that can be awarded following supplementary assessment is a xS4 (or NSP) (where x is the grade awarded prior to supplementary assessment). The final result can be lower than the original; however, the Grade Point Average will be based on the higher of the two results.