Learning Outcomes and Assessment Procedure

Effective from 01/01/2026

Intent

This Procedure operationalises James Cook University’s (JCU; the University) approach to ensuring learning outcomes guide assessment methods, align with professional standards, and promote academic integrity. This Procedure aims to support students to develop high-level, transferable skills and competencies through structured, relevant and measurable Course Learning Outcomes.

This Procedure addresses coursework delivery within the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) Standard 1.4.

Scope

This Procedure applies to all coursework programs conducted at all JCU campuses, including Brisbane and Singapore, and both staff and students must adhere to this Policy.

Definitions

Except where otherwise defined in this policy, definitions for terms used in this policy are located in the Policy Glossary.

Diagnostic Activity – a process to understand students’ skills and knowledge levels at the commencement of a program, so that appropriate support or resources can be provided. Grading or ranking is not required.

Monitoring Activity – a type of evaluation used during the learning process to check engagement or progress, provide feedback, and guide improvement. Grading or ranking is not required.

Programmatic Assessment – a systematic approach to assessment wherein the outcomes of a variety of purposefully selected assessment tasks are longitudinally collected, collated, and combined to obtain triangulated information about a learner's progress in developing key competency domains and capabilities.

Special Examination – an examination approved by a College Dean where a formal Supplementary or Deferred Examination cannot be attended due to Special Circumstances. Managed by the Academic Unit.

Supplementary Examination – an additional examination to determine whether a student has achieved the subject learning outcomes and/or requirements to pass the subject. These examinations are timetabled during the Supplementary/Deferred Examination Period.

Table of Contents

1. Learning Outcomes

2. Assessment Methods

3. Assessment Requirements

4. Coursework Assessment

5. Types of Assessment

6. Assessment Feedback

7. Grading

8. Exams

9. Moderation and Calibration

10. Review of Grades and Results

11. Deferred or Altered Examination Timing Provision

12. Supplementary Exams and Alternate Assessment

13. Special Assessment

14. Supplementary Examination Results and Communication

15. Research Training and Assessment by Coursework

Procedure

1. Learning Outcomes

1.1 Course Learning Outcomes are consistent with the Australian Qualification Framework and the discipline or professional accreditation specifications. Course Learning Outcomes are guided by national and international comparators and should seek to benchmark with the sector at least twice during the 7-year accreditation cycle.

1.2 Course Learning Outcomes form the basis of the attributes a graduate will carry into their professional role. These may be guided by external accreditation, discipline peak bodies and industry/professional stakeholder input. Course Learning Outcomes take the form of knowledge, skills and the application of knowledge and skills, and are measured by competency or capability to perform as a job-ready graduate. Course Learning Outcomes include:

1.2.1 specific knowledge and skills and their application that characterise the field(s) of education or disciplines involved;

1.2.2 generic skills and their application in the context of the field(s) of education or disciplines involved;

1.2.3 knowledge and skills required for employment and further study related to the course of study, including those required to be eligible to seek registration to practise where applicable; and

1.2.4 skills in independent and critical thinking suitable for life-long learning.

1.3 Course Learning Outcome statements are designed to be:

1.3.1 clear, valid and demonstrable;

1.3.2 progressive in cognitive or skill demand over the duration of the course;

1.3.3 achievable within the study plan timeframe and mode or location of delivery; and

1.3.4 equitable, utilising a variety of assessment items which respond to diverse student backgrounds.

1.4 Consideration of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Learning Outcomes associated with JCU’s unique place in the Tropics, should be incorporated into Course Learning Outcomes where practical.

1.5 Subject Learning Outcomes are written from the point-of-view of student learning, with three to five Subject Learning Outcomes recommended for a 3-credit point (3CP) subject with the equivalence of 120 hours of learning and assessment activities. The Subject Learning Outcomes provide the basis for the detailed mapping of Course Learning Outcomes listed in clause 1.2 and seek to develop the Course Learning Outcomes within the suite of core or mandated subjects. Subjects with 6, 9 or 12 credit point weighting should aim to set outcomes commensurate with the demands and scale of the subject. Research training, student placement, fieldwork, and other project-based subjects may have fewer Learning Outcomes, as required.

1.6 Subject design will utilise a variety of learning activities and assessment methods that promote academic integrity and incorporate the use of new technologies relevant to future career options. The scheduling of assessment should be mapped for every course, major and minor, to ensure students acquire all Course Learning Outcomes prior to graduation. The veracity of the acquisition of knowledge, skills and ability to apply knowledge and skills must be assessed through robust methods.

2. Assessment Methods

2.1 Assessment methods must be reflective of the Subject Learning Outcomes, be purposeful and varied across a course (written, oral, performance/practice or products) and seek to evaluate particular attributes listed as learning outcomes  .

2.2 With advancements in technology, especially generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), assessment methods must avoid:

2.2.1 products or artefacts that can be easily produced by Gen AI where this is not an intended part of the assessment but which are difficult to detect;

2.2.2 assessment that can be outsourced;

2.2.3 reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) detection software;

2.2.4 the use of process tracking (draft versions) as reliable evidence of authorship; and

2.2.5 single mitigation tactics, such as screen tools.

2.3 Where practical, assessment should be designed to use a variety of methods to determine Subject Learning Outcomes. On occasion, multiple-method assessment (with a single submission date) may provide more authentic techniques to exploit technology but still assess human learning (e.g. presentation and written assessment).

2.4 Collaboration is an important graduate capability and can be assessed through well-designed group projects.  Group projects may be assessed by giving the same mark for each group member, or by the combination of a whole group component and an individual component (see 3.9.5). Assessing group projects requires techniques to measure processes, not just output.

2.5 The use of written examinations is to be avoided where possible. Whilst this type of assessment provides a form of robust measurement through invigilation, this method may not demonstrate authentic assessment, and standardised examinations fail to evaluate the complex capabilities needed for professional practice.

3. Assessment Requirements

3.1 Assessment requirements will be listed in the Curriculum Management System (CMS- Espresso) and communicated through the Learning Management System (LearnJCU).

3.2 Every subject learning outcome must be assured through some form of monitoring or assessment.

3.3 Subject design will seek to minimise the volume and time commitment to assessment and have a maximum of 3 assessment items in a 3-credit point (CP) subject with an indicative learning commitment of 120 hours. Each of the three assessment items will have a single submission due date. Assessment items must not gather multiple individual graded assessment tasks within one of the three assessment activities. Multiple items in portfolio style assessments due on a single date, will be permitted. Where subjects are larger than 3CP, assessment tasks will be proportionate to the level of CP allocated to the subject.

3.4 Subjects should seek to assess professional and/or technical competencies and transferable skills using Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory assessment.

3.5 Each of the 3 assessments, including all types of examinations, must provide an individual rubric or answer key which contains descriptors for indicative performance within the key elements of the assessment.

3.6 Subject designers must consider learning resource availability for students, when designing assessment tasks, this will also consider the use of technology that could mask academic integrity.

3.7 Assessment must retain equivalence across all campuses, modes of delivery and study periods and be reviewed annually. Any variation in an assessment item, which alters type or scale, within a 12-month cycle of delivery, must be requested in writing by the subject coordinator with a rationale as to the fairness of the variation and any implication for other cohorts undertaking the subject. All variations must be endorsed by the Course Coordinator for all courses to which the subject is core and approved by the College Dean with oversight of the subject prior to implementation. The variation must be recorded in the LMS (LearnJCU).

3.8 For variations to assessment where the subject has commenced in the study period, students are to be consulted, and where there is no dissent, approved (as per 3.7) and communicated in the LMS.

3.9 Assessment weighting rules:

3.9.1 Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory assessment is to be used where learning activities or foundational knowledge/skills either take precedence over performance or the activity seeks to evaluate a competency which has specified threshold attributes.

3.9.2 For subjects coded at level two and above, subject coordinators can determine if the Subject Learning Outcomes are best represented by graded or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory results (this will be determined by the course assessment matrix)

3.9.3 From January 1 2027, all level zero and level one-coded subjects will use Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory results, the only final result types available are satisfactory/unsatisfactory (with or without supplementaries). Individual assessment items within subjects are to be graded as unsatisfactory, satisfactory or where determinable, satisfactory exceeded.

3.9.4 Each assessment item in graded subjects is assigned a weighting. Weighting of assessment is commensurate with the knowledge, skills, and their application, required for a particular item, the level code of the subject and the selected results system, with expected workload considered

3.9.5 There must be no more than 50% assessment weighting for group work, unless there is scope for individual differentiation of the components of the shared group grade

3.9.6 In cases where oral or performance presentations are assessed and weighted more than 20% in a subject, staff must provide a means by which a review of assessment is possible

3.9.7 Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory subjects will not be required to provide weightings, as all subject learning outcomes must be achieved

3.10 The University is obliged by the Disability Standards for Education 2005 to provide reasonable adjustments (see guidance notes) for students with temporary or permanent health conditions and/or disabilities. Subject Coordinators make reasonable adjustments to assessment methods and/or items to ensure equal access to education. Reasonable adjustments do not alter the need for students to be able to demonstrate the Course Learning Outcomes and Inherent Requirements. Any adjustments to assessment must:

3.10.1 ensure that the fundamental nature of any assessment remains the same;

3.10.2 ensure that any modification does not affect the value or integrity of the assessment;

3.10.3 assure the relevant Subject Learning Outcomes can be demonstrated;

3.10.4 not impose unjustifiable hardship on the University; and

3.10.5 safeguard student and public safety.

3.11 To ensure students receive equivalent time to demonstrate acquisition of learning outcomes, assessment activities may be scheduled during both the study and exam period, if there are no exams scheduled.

3.12 Assessment marking, participation and attendance will follow the subsequent requirements:

3.12.1 staff must not practice ‘negative marking’ of any assessment item, specifically the deduction of marks for any wrong answer, or no answer/blank answer;

3.12.2 to maintain transparency all special consideration related to assessment must be applied for through the formal online process. Approval provided by other means will not be considered;

3.12.3 a uniform formula of penalties is imposed for submission of an assessment item after the due date. This formula is 5% of the total possible marks for the assessment item per day (irrespective of part-days, weekends, and public holidays). If submitted after 20 days, the assessment item would be awarded 0 marks (i.e. 5% x 20 = 100% of total possible marks in penalties);

3.12.4 for assessment items weighted 0% (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory), and submitted after 10 days a ‘did not submit’ (DNS) grade is awarded; and

3.13 Attendance alone must not be included as an assessment item, where attendance requirements are specified in the Subject Outline to enable particular types of learning, records must be kept by the subject coordinator

3.14 Assessment decisions are complex and occasionally decisions need to be made about specific circumstances not covered by clause 3.1 - 3.13 of this Procedure. In those circumstances, the relevant College Dean has the delegated authority to make a decision and retain a record.

4. Coursework Assessment

4.1 All assessment will be aligned with Course Learning Outcomes and mapped to determine acquisition of knowledge, skills and their application, in methods that are valid, fair and transparent to the student.

4.2 Assessment will be clearly defined and will include:

4.2.1 a clear explanation of task and workload/time expectations;

4.2.2 alignment with specific subject learning outcomes;

4.2.3 grading details: weighting or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory, must-pass or combination of both; and

4.2.4 evaluation criteria contained in a rubric designed specifically for each assessment task that contain criteria or scales which define the performance standards that are expected of students to attain a particular grade (or satisfactory/unsatisfactory) on a criterion-referenced assessment item.

4.3 Students are responsible for ensuring the integrity, authorship and authenticity of all assessment materials submitted, in accordance with the Coursework Academic Integrity Policy and the Student Code of Conduct. Instances of suspected academic misconduct are investigated in accordance with the Student Academic Misconduct Procedure.

5. Types of Assessment

5.1 In order to determine student levels of capability where assumed knowledge and/or academic preparedness skills are expected though not assured, diagnostic activity should be employed early in a study period to determine support and resources needed to achieve Subject Learning Outcomes.

5.2 Monitoring activities should take place during the study period to determine progress towards achieving Subject Learning Outcomes. Feedback mechanisms may include automated individual and or group advice and individual feedback via consultation or direct communication or during scheduled learning activities.

5.3 All Course Learning Outcomes need to be evaluated at some stage during the delivery of a course, this may include assessment (either graded or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) at crucial milestones in the course study plan. There is no requirement to assess all skills or knowledge in every subject if they are part of a scaffolded process that will be evaluated in a later subject in a course study plan. It is essential to map learning outcomes within a course or major assessment matrix.

5.4 Non-professionally accredited degrees and externally accredited professional degrees both rely on assessment that will prepare students for professional careers. Authentic Assessment seeks to create real-life tasks to make graduates job ready. It is essential that all courses map opportunities for authentic assessment at critical stages in a study plan. These may take a range of assessment instruments including WIL, MSAT, OSCE/practical exam, viva voce, fieldwork, studio or laboratory practice and other scenario-based activity.

5.5 For professionally accredited degrees, that have prescriptive Course Learning Outcomes and key competencies with limited flexibility in the study plan, consideration should be given to Programmatic Assessment. A complete mapping of competencies should overlay the study plan and a cumulative structure of novice, established and proficient learning acquisition levels determined. A learning ePortfolio aligned with Course Learning Outcomes and professional accreditation requirements will provide the structure for meeting assessment requirements listed in the policy, with program-level assessment requirements maintained in the Curriculum Management System (CMS) and published to the course handbook.

6. Assessment Feedback

6.1 Students will receive feedback on all assessment activities to inform them of their progress towards achieving the Subject Learning Outcomes.

6.2 Feedback must be provided in a timely manner to either diagnose or monitor progress towards learning acquisition. Where practical, self-assessment, peer assessment and automation will provide indicative performance levels that can be utilised to adjust or augment learning activities and gauge the necessity for additional monitoring or assessment. Where activities, including assessment, may have impact on future assessment items, feedback should be received with sufficient time to allow students to gain benefit from the feedback.

6.3 Feedback must be recorded in a way that students can reflect and review the commentary on their work, it may take the form of grades (recorded in the LMS Grade Book), comments, exemplars or rubrics. Feedback can be provided at the individual, group or cohort level. Where performance is meeting expectations, the feedback should acknowledge and provide commentary to encourage improvement. Where feedback recognises deficiencies, some form of strategy to improve performance or other alternatives must be offered.

6.4 Early (pre-census) diagnostic activity or monitoring activity or an assessment item must be used in all core subjects in a course or major, to provide feedback on student preparedness against Subject Learning Outcomes and to identify additional support requirements. Subjects with placement or fieldwork must use methods to determine likelihood of student success based on pre-requisites or course performance when it is impractical to run diagnostic activities.

6.5 All students must receive feedback or communication on their subject engagement (diagnostic activity, or monitoring activity, or assessment item) prior to assessment where it may affect progression.

7. Grading

7.1 The JCU Grading system will be used to communicate performance levels to students for all assessment items and will provide explicit information regarding the meeting of Learning Outcomes or other competencies. The communication of percentage marks for student information is discouraged, as no individual mark or grade is certified until the assessment committee ratifies the results.

7.2 On-course assessment grading rules:

7.2.1 Students are given the grade that their work deserves, based on a clear set of criteria or scales outlined in rubrics.

7.2.2 Assessment criteria and grading method are appropriate to the level code of the subject, and the Course and Subject Learning Outcomes and subject result system.

7.2.3 Assessment is graded fairly and consistently. The University can use computer-aided marking to grade assessment (for example, machine-readable multiple-choice quiz sheets, online automated marking).

7.3 Staff must inform students of their grade for each assessment item in a subject via the LearnJCU Grade Centre. Timeframes for notification are outlined in 6.2.

7.4 Student grades and results are released only to those with the legitimate rights of access, in accordance with the Information Privacy Policy.

7.5 Subject results must always undergo final ratification for each study period. No single grade or mark represents a final result in a subject, see Learning Resources and Educational Support Procedure.

7.6 Amendments to student grades:

7.6.1 Where a student has received an assessment grade before a College Assessment Meeting has confirmed the subject result, the Subject Coordinator can amend the grade in the LMS (LearnJCU Grade Centre)

7.6.2 Adjustments to assessment items or subject results, finalised after the results release date of the subject result must be made in accordance with the Finalisation and Publication of Student Results Procedure.

8. Exams

8.1 In order to increase authentic assessment, no more than 50% of core subjects offered in any course  (or subjects identified as required to demonstrate Course Learning Outcomes in majors, minors or electives as determined by a Course Coordinator) will have end of study period written exams. Non-core subjects may determine the most effective form of assessment, including written exams, as determined by the subject design and learning outcomes. Subjects that do not offer exams in the end of study period may set submission dates for assessment items as late as the end of the formal exam week, to broaden students’ learning opportunities

8.2 There will be no end of study period examinations for block mode subjects.

8.3 End of Study period written examination protocols include:

8.3.1 Examination papers for written examinations are securely prepared, approved and submitted to the Examinations Unit in a timely manner and to meet deadlines, as outlined in the Examination Procedures.

8.3.2 Centrally administered hard copy written examinations can only be used for end of study period examinations where there are markers available on each campus for which the subject is offered.

8.3.3 Centrally administered exams identified as core to course learning outcomes that require hard copy evaluation will be exempt from 8.3.2. These exams must be approved by the DVC Academy. Upon DVC Academy approval, hard copy written examination scripts or electronic copies may be forwarded to an alternative campus for evaluation.

8.4 Subjects may use on-course tests and quizzes using the LMS (LearnJCU) but there will be no College administered written examinations, only supplementary/deferred assessments may be scheduled by the College in an examination period, in consultation with the examinations team or at any other time deemed reasonable by the College Dean.

8.5 Other examination types, that do not focus on written forms of assessments, are not restricted and may be scheduled in the examination period as required, in consultation with the examinations team. Course Coordinators are encouraged to utilise oral, performance, demonstrations or other practical authentic assessment tasks.

9. Moderation and Calibration

9.1 The assessment principles of fair, valid and transparent centre on good design but also upon benchmarking the assessment tools and the processes of marking. To ensure validity, progression related assessment items need to be cross referenced through a form of moderation and calibration. Diagnostic and monitoring activities are best validated via peer review and require review only when necessary.

9.2 Where assessment is being used, Subject Coordinators must:

9.2.1 report on the subject assessment moderation process at College Assessment meetings;

9.2.2 for multi campus delivery implement moderation processes of pre-marking and/or during marking, and/or post- marking to assure validity and reliability of the assessment item;

9.2.3 select the sample for moderation: individual assessment items, or whole-of-subject assessment;

9.2.4 implement subject-level moderation processes that consist of an analysis of top grades, borderline pass/fail grades and a selection of mid-range grades; and

9.2.5 discuss moderation processes and outcomes during the results certification process.

9.3 Assessment moderation methods may include: pre-determined criterion-based standards/rubrics, comprehensive marking guides, peer review of assessment, double marking, exchange marking, blind marking, and confirmatory review.

9.4 Consensus moderation of final results is essential in the certification process and takes place at College Assessment meetings. This includes consistent and fair moderation of assessments (including examinations) for students who applied for Special Consideration. Moderation processes are reviewed at Assessment Committee Meetings.

9.5 Where major differences emerge in the grading of the same assessment item, the Subject Coordinator determines strategies to resolve the final grade by convening a moderation panel or using an external examiner. Where moderation outcomes are irreconcilable, matters should be referred to the Academic Head to determine the grade.

9.6 In addition to moderation within the discipline and across campuses, subject coordinators must seek external oversight for assessment every three years or following a major review of subject assessment. Calibration of grading systems with an external stakeholder or another institution, provides assurance that assessment and marking are consistent with emerging developments in the field education and marking scales used in comparable programs. Subject coordinators can use a variety of methods to achieve external review, including periodic use external assessors, batch calibration with peer institutions (e.g. IRU), quid-pro-quo assessment with another institution or sector discipline reviews of assessment and grade distribution reports.

10. Review of Grades and Results

10.1 Students have a right to access copies of examination responses and other assessment materials that have not been returned to them during the study period and such materials must be retained by the University for such purpose. Subject Coordinators must retain digital or hard copies of these assessment materials in a secure repository for 2 years. (see Trim Guidelines).

10.2 The release of assessment materials (including examination papers) must not prejudice future assessment items, for example if an examination question is used repeatedly. In such cases, a student can arrange with the Subject Coordinator to read their examination responses in the physical presence of the Subject Coordinator or their academic nominee.

10.3 Students can request a review of result in any assessment item (including examinations) within 10 University working days of the grade for that work being published in the LMS (LearnJCU Grade Centre). To request a review of an assessment item, the student must:

10.3.1 Check the stated assessment information in the Subject Outline; or the LearnJCU Subject Site and

10.3.2 Email the Subject Coordinator to seek out and receive feedback about their performance for the assessment item.

10.3.3 The Subject Coordinator must respond with 5 University working days of receiving the request for review.

10.4 If the student remains dissatisfied with the Subject Coordinator’s response or if the Subject Coordinator fails to respond within 5 University working days, the student may, within the next 5 University working days, submit a detailed written case demonstrating that the awarded grade does not align with the published assessment criteria for that assessment. This request must be directed to the Academic Head via email.

10.5 In considering a request for a review of an individual assessment item the Academic Head must consider consistency and equity relating to other students in the subject. A decision to accept a late application for review of an examination grade is made by the Academic Head.

10.6 Following a review request, the Academic Head will review the information provided by the student, make a decision and respond to the student within 7 university working days of receiving the request from the student. Where:

10.6.1 a request for a review of an assessment item can result in a re-mark of the assessment as determined by the Academic Head. If a request is granted, the Academic Head nominates an alternative qualified person to grade a blind copy of the assessment item. That review of assessment must occur within 7 university working days of the decision to grant the review.

10.6.2 in all cases where a review and re-mark is granted, (at the discretion of the Academic Head) the revised grade replaces the original grade in the calculation of the final result, including in instances where the grade goes down. Where the Academic Head is also the Subject Coordinator, the initial application for a review is directed to the relevant Dean.

10.7 The Academic Head will provide a written response, and information regarding the student’s right to an appeal at the completion of the subject, to the student, and the relevant College or Divisional office for record-keeping purposes

10.8 A student who has requested access to assessment materials under clause 10.1 and been denied access by the University can appeal against the decision under the Student Review and Appeals Policy

11. Deferred or Altered Examination Timing Provision

11.1 A deferred assessment (including an examination) is a delay (postponement) to the start date of an assessment item. A deferral can be awarded due to:

11.1.1 The cancellation of an assessment item by the University, for example disruption by natural disasters, or government restrictions. The student does not have to apply if all students were affected.

11.1.2 Impact to all students taking part in an online assessment item due to technology or equipment issues which prevented equitable access. The student does not have to apply if all students were affected.

11.1.3 Staff illness or staff accident preventing an assessment (including an examination) from taking place. The student does not have to apply in this instance.

11.1.4 Circumstances outlined in the Defence Force, National Service and Elite Athlete Friendly University Procedure. The student must apply for a deferral and must have supporting documentation.

11.1.5 A pre-arranged and formal commitment to jury service/attending court/hospital on the scheduled day of the assessment/examination. The student must apply for deferral and must have supporting documentation.

11.1.6 A decision declared by the College Dean or Chair, Academic Board relative to the circumstance and study period.

11.1.7 Special Circumstances in accordance with the Student Special Circumstances Policy and Special Consideration Procedure. For circumstances covered in clauses 11.1.1-3 or 11.1.6 a student or students do not need to apply as the deferred assessment will be granted by the Subject Coordinator. In all other circumstances, students must apply following the Special Consideration Procedure.

12. Supplementary Exams and Alternate Assessment

12.1 A supplementary assessment (including examination) is permitted in some courses and subjects and is stated in the CMS and LMS. A supplementary assessment must be designed in such a way to ensure that any learning outcomes, not yet evidenced by the student for that subject, can be assured through the passing of the supplementary.

12.2 Supplementary assessment will be offered to students under the following conditions:

12.2.1 A College Assessment Committee, College Dean or Chair of an appeal committee, can grant a supplementary assessment to determine whether the student has achieved the Subject Learning Outcomes and/or requirements to pass the subject. The College Dean can also grant a supplementary assessment or examination after considering assessment results and moderation processes

12.2.2 The supplementary assessment must be peer checked and approved by the Academic Head or delegate.

12.2.3 A supplementary examination or assessment must be scheduled in the published supplementary/deferred examination period in accordance with clause 14.2 or organised by the Discipline in accordance with clause 14.3, and the supplementary assessments must be due no earlier than five University working days after the result release date.

12.3 A supplementary examination can be granted for the following reasons:

12.3.1 when a student did not pass the final examination and achieved an accumulative subject score within 5% below the passing score required for the graded subject, and has met all other requirements to pass the subject; or

12.3.2 if a student has not met the satisfactory requirements in an exam or a final assessment in a Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory subject but has achieved satisfactory or satisfactory exceeded throughout the study period; or

12.3.3 if the exam is a must pass assessment item and the student failed the exam but achieved the passing score for the subject; or

12.3.4 as a result of an application for Special Consideration; or

12.3.5 as an outcome of a review or appeal, a special examination request, or an academic misconduct investigation; or

12.3.6 in accordance with the supplementary examination progression requirements stipulated in the Subject Outline; or

12.3.7 as a result of a recommendation and justification of a Subject Coordinator.

12.4 A supplementary assessment (non-examination) may be granted for the following reasons:

12.4.1 When the subject does not have a final examination and the student achieved an accumulative subject score within 5% below the passing score required for the subject; or

12.4.2 if a student passes the final examination, and the student achieved an accumulative subject score within 5% below the passing score required for the subject; or

12.4.3 when a student passes the final examination and achieves the passing accumulative score for the subject, but has not passed all ‘must pass’ assessment items in the subject; or

12.4.4 when the subject has a pass/fail result system and the student has not passed one ‘must pass’ assessment item in the subject; or

12.4.5 as a result of an application for Special Consideration; or

12.4.6 as an outcome of a review or appeal, a special examination request, or an academic misconduct investigation; or in accordance with the supplementary examination progression requirements stipulated in the Subject Outline.

13. Special Assessment

13.1 A special assessment (including examination) is permitted in all courses and subjects. Where applicable:

13.1.1 A College Dean or Chair of an appeal committee can grant a special assessment or examination for a student to determine whether the student has achieved the Subject Learning Outcomes and/or requirements to pass the subject. The College Dean can also grant a special assessment or examination after considering assessment results and moderation processes

13.1.2 The special assessment or examination must assess the Subject Learning Outcomes and/or the assessment requirements necessary to pass the subject that the student has not yet evidenced

13.1.3 The special assessment or examination must be peer checked and approved by the Academic Head or delegate

13.1.4 A special examination must be scheduled as soon as practicable once awarded, organised by the Discipline. A special assessment must be due no earlier than five University working days after the result release date.

13.2 A special examination or assessment can be granted for the following reasons:

13.2.1 a result of an application for Special Consideration;

13.2.2 an outcome of a review or appeal, or an academic misconduct investigation;

13.2.3 a result of the College Dean’s determination that the student should be re- assessed in the subject due to concerns relating to competency, equity or fairness.

13.3 An interim subject result of SPE (special examination granted) shall be awarded for a special examination, and an interim subject result of SPA (special assessment granted) shall be awarded for a special assessment.

13.4 If the special assessment/examination is replacing a supplementary exam/assessment, then the final result will be awarded consistent with clauses 14.5-14.6

13.5 If the student does not sit the special examination or does not submit the special assessment by the due date or does not pass the special examination/special assessment, a result will be applied in accordance with the Subject Outline specifications to pass the subject and any conditions nominated in the outcome letter for misconduct, review/appeal.

14. Supplementary Examination Results and Communication

14.1 An interim subject result of FSE (Fail (supplementary examination granted)) shall be awarded for a supplementary examination, and an interim subject result of FSA (Fail (supplementary assessment granted)) shall be awarded for a supplementary assessment.

14.2 Where an FSE result has been awarded, the Examinations Unit will notify the student by email of the examination schedule no later than one University working day after the result release date of interim subject results.

14.3 Where an FSA result has been awarded the Subject Coordinator must notify the student of the requirements of the supplementary assessment no later than 5 University working days after the result release date or update of interim subject result.

14.4 Supplementary assessment/examination will determine the pass or fail result in the subject and not be a component of a final result.

14.5 If the student passes the supplementary assessment/examination a supplementary pass (SP) or supplementary satisfactory (SS) subject result is awarded (pass after sitting a supplementary examination or supplementary assessment).

14.6 If the student does not sit the supplementary examination, does not submit the supplementary assessment by the due date, or does not pass the supplementary examination/supplementary assessment, a subject result of F (Fail) or U (Unsatisfactory) is awarded.

15. Research Training and Assessment by Coursework

15.1 The approach for honours project/thesis and postgraduate coursework research assessment must be clearly communicated to students LMS subject site.

15.2 All students are required to give an oral presentation on their research/project to the staff and other students in their discipline or area, this must occur at least once during the course of study and does not need to be assessed.

15.3 For end-on Honours research and other coursework dissertations greater than 12 CP in value, at least one independent examiner with discipline expertise must be used.

15.4 Supervisors and subject coordinators are required to report on the student progress regarding any coursework Learning Outcome performance, communication will be included in the LMS Gradebook or in the form of written feedback.

15.5 Disciplines must use assessment criteria for grading honours and postgraduate theses or other project outcomes with the criteria published in the LMS and/or Honours handbook.

15.6 Disciplines must use a Moderation Plan approved by the Academic Head to ensure valid and consistent thesis marking, with the process published in the LMS/Honours handbook.

15.7 Course coordinators of coursework research training programs will seek either external benchmarking, calibration or use of an external assessor at least once every three years.

Related policy instruments

Learning Outcomes and Assessment Policy

Curriculum Design, Coursework Approval and Accreditation Policy

Qualifications and Certification Policy (to be developed)

Award Finalisation and Graduation Policy

Coursework Award Finalisation, Conferral and Issuance Procedure

Exit and Interim Award Procedure

Finalisation and Publication of Student Results Procedure

Posthumous Award Procedure

Recognition of Academic Excellence Procedure

Student Results Policy

Examinations Procedure for Staff

Examinations Procedure for Students

Academic Misconduct Procedure

Coursework Academic Integrity Policy

Coursework Academic Integrity Procedure

Student Code of Conduct

Student Special Circumstances Policy

Student Disability Policy

Student Complaints Policy

Student Review and Appeals Policy

Information Privacy Policy

Defence Force, National Service and Elite Athlete Friendly University Procedure

Learning Resources and Educational Support Policy

Learning Resources and Educational Support Procedure

Coursework Monitoring, Review and Improvement Policy

Schedules/Appendices

Administration

NOTE: Printed copies of this procedure are uncontrolled, and currency can only be assured at the time of printing.

Approval Details

Revision History