Assessment - Christian Heritage College


Policy Group(s): Group B: Academic – 1: Students (Ref: B1/1210.1-0718)
Related Policy:
Academic Integrity
Course Development, Accreditation and Review
External Moderation of Assessment Grievance Policy for Domestic Students – Academic Grievances
Grievance Policy for Overseas Students
Internal Moderation of Unit Exit Results
Commencement Date: January 2011
Review Date: December 2016
Scheduled Review Date: December 2021
Further Information

Please refer to Policy Provision 6 of CHC Policy: Academic Integrity. The number of students with disabilities or special needs enrolled at CHC is such that it is not feasible to have specific arrangements in place for various categories of disability. Rather, these students are monitored on an individual basis and receive support when seeking assessment assistance through the office of the Disabilities Support Officer.


This policy establishes the rights and obligations of staff and students at CHC as they relate to assessment. CHC is committed to openness and transparency; therefore, this policy outlines the guiding principles of assessment practices at CHC.


Restrictions:     Nil

Excludes:          Assessment associated with Theses.


1.       To provide students with an understanding of the guiding principles of assessment practices and how these assessment practices contribute to high-quality learning at CHC.

2.       To ensure openness and transparency of assessment practices at CHC.

3.       To provide students with a clear understanding of their responsibilities with regards to assessment.

4.       To provide staff with a clear understanding of their responsibilities to students regarding assessment practices.

Policy Provisions:

1.      General

1.1.      Assessment practices at CHC are considered integral components of the teaching and learning process and are designed to contribute to high-quality learning by students and underpin the development, delivery and quality assurance of courses.

1.2.      CHC has adopted a criterion-referenced approach and thus student results reflect the extent to which the unit outcomes have been achieved in the light of the evidence developed and used for exit purpose, rather than representing students’ achievements relative to group norms.

1.3.      Each School will adopt a consistent approach to grading, for example, all numerical or all descriptive.

1.4.      Each School will publish in its Unit Outlines and/or Student Handbook the method by which a final unit exit grade is reached. The application of the method will be explained in an appendix to the Unit Outlines and/or the School Student Handbook, with enough detail provided to enable a student to reconstruct a final unit exit grade.

1.5.      To be eligible for consideration of a passing grade. Where the method by which a final exit grade is reached is subject to a hurdle requirement, that hurdle requirement must be stated in the relevant Unit Outline, or, where it applies to all units in a course, in all Unit Outlines for that course or in the Student handbook.

1.6.      Assessment practices at CHC are designed to contribute to high quality learning by students and underpin the development, delivery and quality assurance of courses, and are based on the following principles:

1.6.1.     assessment is valued as a strategy to support student learning;

1.6.2.     assessment cohesively links the learning outcomes, content and learning and teaching approaches at the unit and course level including graduate capabilities;

1.6.3.     assessment approaches are consistent with CHC’s mission and include a variety of assessment items;

1.6.4.     assessment reflects rigorous academic standards associated with the discipline and is based on pre-determined and clearly articulated criteria, associated standards and weightings;

1.6.5.     assessment is fair, equitable and inclusive and clearly communicated to students;

1.6.6.     assessment patterns provide progressive, timely and meaningful feedback to students and staff through both formative and summative elements;

1.6.7.     assessment approaches ensure that reliable and consistent judgments are made about a student’s performance and that students’ academic integrity is promoted; and

1.6.8.     assessment is reviewed as part of the course quality assurance processes to facilitate effective learning and maximise efficiency for students and staff.

2. Criterion-Referenced Assessment

2.1.      Assessment at CHC shall be criterion-referenced assessment as the assessment method and shall explicitly define the relationships between summative assessment and:

2.1.1.     the learning outcomes;

2.1.2.     performance standards to be met;

2.1.3.     performance expectations held by students; and

2.1.4.     the awarding of results both for individual assessment tasks and unit exit results.

2.2.      In criterion-referenced assessment judgements about the quality of students’ performance are made by reference to predetermined and clearly articulated criteria and standards of performance, knowledge, skills, and/or capabilities and not by reference to the achievement of other students or the group norm, thereby reducing unnecessary competitiveness and stress.

The following definitions apply:

Criterion: a property or characteristic by which the quality of something may be judged. Specifying criteria nominates qualities of interest and utility but does not have anything to offer, or make any assumptions about, actual quality.

Standard of performance: a definite level of achievement aspired to or attained. Standards of performance specify levels of quality (or achievement, or performance) for each criterion.

2.3.      Criterion-referenced approach to assessment reduces unnecessary competitiveness and stress since students are assessed in terms of performance on specifically stated criteria rather than directly against peers, as in the norm-referenced model.

3.      Designing Assessment for Learning

3.1.      Assessment is an integral component of the curriculum design for any unit or course. Both unit and Course Coordinators have a responsibility to ensure that the choice of learning activities and associated assessment items are clearly informed by the desired learning outcomes and are consistent with whole of course design.

3.2.      At the course level, Course Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that assessment design and practice:

3.2.1.     is consistent with the course design in that it assists students to achieve the desired learning outcomes of the course;

3.2.2.     is comprehensive in that it addresses the learning outcomes of the course, challenges students to deeper learning, and provides opportunities for students to demonstrate their full capabilities;

3.2.3.     is sequenced to allow students to progressively and realistically build their capabilities; and

3.2.4.     as far as is practicable, recognises and caters for the diversity of student backgrounds, experiences, modes of delivery and learning styles.

3.3.      Course Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that assessment design and practice:

3.3.1.     is relevant to faith and professional contexts consistent with CHC’s mission and approach to teaching and learning;

3.3.2.     reflects the material that is most important for the students to learn;

3.3.3.     establishes valid criteria that are consistent with the assessment task and aligned to the relevant unit learning outcomes;

3.3.4.     establishes clear standards of performance that are high but attainable to motivate students and impact positively on their learning;

3.3.5.     is effective to provide clear, relevant, valid and reliable evidence of the learning outcomes for the unit that does not discriminate between students;

3.3.6.     is inclusive to promote equal opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to excel;

3.3.7.     is efficient in terms of both student and staff workload in relation to the value of the task;

3.3.8.     provides a reasonable spread of assessment items throughout the teaching period so that timely feedback can be provided to assist students to achieve the unit learning outcomes;

3.3.9.     provides opportunity for the learning outcomes to be met through more than one assessment task; and

3.3.10.   grading shall be transparent and reflect the extent to which the student has achieved the learning outcomes stated in the unit outline.

3.4.      In the design of assessment and its relationship to Unit Results, Course Coordinators should ensure that where a unit contains competency-based approaches, the Unit Result will be an Ungraded Pass ‘UP’ or Fail ‘F’.

4.      Assessment Patterns and Practices

4.1.      CHC has established a typical assessment pattern (number, types and weights of assessment items) to support good practice principles (see Policy Provision 1) and ensure that assessment within a unit meets the design specifications outlined in Policy Provision 6.

4.2.      These assessment patterns apply to all courses and units unless an exception has been approved as part of the curriculum development and approval process.

4.3.      Exceptions to the typical assessment patterns must be accompanied by a clear academic rationale.

4.4.      Exceptions may be approved to satisfy prescribed professional accreditation requirements or support substantive discipline requirements.

4.5.      Exceptions must be consistent with the principles of assessment outlined in Policy Provision 1.3 and the Course Development and Accreditation policy and must be clearly communicated to students.

4.6.      A 10 credit point unit includes two or three summative assessment tasks,

4.7.      Weightings for each assessment task must be a whole percentage in increments of 5% (e.g. 35%) and the weighting must not be expressed as a range (e.g. between 30% and 40%).

4.8.      Weightings for assessment tasks meet the following patterns:

4.8.1.     the maximum weighting of an assessment task is 60% of the total summative assessment for the unit;

4.8.2.     the minimum weighting of an assessment task is 10% of the total summative assessment for the unit;

4.8.3.     the maximum weighting of an examination is 60% of the total summative assessment for the unit; and

4.8.4.     the maximum weighting for the collective component of formal collaborative work (group work) is 50% of the result for the unit.

Note:    Theses and some Independent Study Projects fall outside the scope of this policy.

5.      Information About Assessment

5.1.      No later than the first week of every semester the summative assessment tasks for each unit to be taught in that semester will be made available to prospective and enrolled students, in hard copy and/or electronic form on Moodle™. This information will state clearly and precisely when assessment tasks are due, their nature, duration or length, the weighting of each assessable item in the total assessment scheme, and penalties for late submission.

5.2.      All necessary information about summative assessment is listed in or appended to the Unit Outline. This will include:

5.2.1.     the amount, form and due dates for each assessment task;

5.2.2.     the criteria and standards of performance to be applied to each assessment task;

5.2.3.     the weighting of individual assessment tasks;

5.2.4.     guidance on the genre, type and nature of the assessment tasks; further explication of the learning outcomes to be achieved in each assessment task;

5.2.5.     where an assessment task is a group task how the grade for that task is to be assigned and how the individual’s contribution to the group task will be assessed[1];

5.2.6.     where an assessment task is an examination, when the examination will be, for instance mid-semester of end-of-semester, and what content will be examined and what materials will be permitted in the examination room;

5.2.7.     circumstances under which extensions and resubmissions might be granted;

5.2.8.     the penalties for non-compliance (e.g. penalties for late submission, exceeding or failing to meet word limits);

5.2.9.     whether all assessment tasks in the unit must be attempted and submitted to be eligible for consideration of a passing grade; and

5.2.10.   how results for each assessment task contribute to yield a final result.

5.3.      Where more than one lecturer/tutor is involved in the delivery of the unit, the Course or Unit Coordinator must ensure that consistent information is provided.

5.4.      Where additional information is communicated orally to students in lectures or tutorials, it should be explanatory only and not necessary to the understanding or completion of the task. Where additional information is provided orally it must be done so two weeks prior to the due date of the assessment item and will be made accessible electronically on Moodle™ and/or in hard copy by all students enrolled in that unit within the next two business days.

5.5.      Students are to be advised to check the relevant school Student Handbook and the CHC website for policy statements concerning special consideration, examinations, academic integrity and extensions.

5.6.      The Dean of each School (or delegate) should monitor the distribution of assessment and deadlines for submission in the semester for each course offered by that School. Excessive clashes or congestion should be raised with the appropriate Course Coordinator with a view to achieving a reasonable distribution in respect of major assessment tasks as far as is practicable.

6.      Changes to the Published Assessment Schedule

6.1.      Any changes to any aspect of the published assessment schedule after Week Two of the semester must be discussed with students.  Where the proposed change does not have the agreement of the whole class, the original assessment schedule must be used.

6.2.      In extreme cases, which are beyond the reasonable control of CHC, a new assessment schedule may be used with the approval of the Dean of the relevant School.

7.      Timing of Assessment and Feedback

7.1.      Timely feedback on assessment is crucial for students’ learning and is to be provided to students on every item of summative assessment. Marks and/or grades are only one component of such feedback.

7.2.      Feedback can be delivered by a variety of methods including group discussion, continuous assessment, written comments on students’ submitted work, via Turnitin™ or on feedback sheets, model answers, lists of common mistakes, and/or peer evaluation.

7.3.      Generally, the results of and feedback for each assessment task should be made available to students within three weeks of the submission date. Students can reasonably expect that they will receive results and feedback for each assessment task at least one week prior to the due date of the subsequent task. All previous results and feedback must be provided to students within a reasonable time before they sit the final assessment task in a unit, be that an examination or item for submission.

7.4.      Other than for exceptional circumstances, all final examinations should be held in the publicised Examinations period and not in the final two weeks of the semester.

7.5.      No examinations will be held during Study Week.

7.6.      In units where there is no scheduled examination, the final piece of assessment may be due in the Examination period but not in Study Week.

7.7.      Other items of assessment should not be scheduled for submission in the final week of the semester, during Examination periods or Study Week. Exceptions are:

7.7.1.     tutorial exercises/presentations/papers/reflections/case studies which have to be scheduled in the final week; and

7.7.2.     work which does not form part of the assessment for the final result in a unit (e.g. a short examination preparation test).

7.8.      At the end of a semester, when the lecturer has all the evidence concerning whether students have met the learning outcomes, the lecturer may recommend to the Examiners’ Meeting that a student be offered a resubmission of an assessment task. Resubmissions for assessment tasks other than examinations reflect the role of a supplementary examination.

7.9.      Students do not have the right to request a resubmission.

7.10.   A resubmission will be granted when insufficient evidence is at hand to determine if a student will, or should, be granted a passing exit result for a unit a study.

7.11.   A result of Supplementary Pass ‘NP’ or Fail ‘F’ is the only result outcome following a resubmission.

7.12.   After final results have been published, students will, upon request, be given an opportunity to peruse, under supervision, the following relating to end of semester examinations:

7.12.1.   the examination paper and their own responses;

7.12.2.   the marking scheme or model answers used to allocate marks or other forms of feedback from the examiner;

7.12.3.   the final distribution of results in the unit and, where percentage mark cut-offs have been used, the percentage mark cut-offs at the result boundaries; and

7.12.4.   This provision will be made where the examination script is not of a type which may be exempted under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld).

8. Student Responsibilities

8.1.      Students are expected to accept responsibility for their learning and should attempt all assessment tasks, both formative and summative, for the units in which they are enrolled.

8.2.      Students are expected to behave honestly and ethically in completing pieces of assessment and to avoid any form of academic misconduct.

8.3.      Students are responsible for managing their individual study and assessment workload to ensure they are able to meet all assessment due dates.

9.      Assessment Submission

9.1.      There are two methods for the submission of assessment – online and paper-based. Students are notified of the submission methods that apply to particular assessment tasks in unit assessment guides.

9.2.      Guidelines relevant to online submission of assessment will be provided in units where this method of submission is permitted.

9.3.      Assessments that are delivered by mail must bear a postmark date and time of the due date.

9.4.      Students are to complete a declaration prior to submitting the assessment.

9.4.1.     When submitting a hard copy, students must complete all required information on the relevant assignment cover and sign the Declaration.  If this information is incomplete or the Declaration is not signed, assessment may be returned to students for resubmission. In such cases, original due dates will remain in force and students may be penalised for the late submission of assessment.

9.4.2.     When submitting online via Turnitin™, students are not required to submit a cover page. Rather they must check the Declaration on the Turnitin™ Submission page. The assessment task will not be submitted if this box is not checked.

9.5.      Assignment covers should only be used once, except where submitting an assignment, in which case the original cover is to be used.

9.6.      Students are responsible for collecting graded assignments. Assignments not collected within six months after the semester in which they were submitted will be destroyed.

10.    Assignment Presentation

10.1.   Protocols regarding the presentation of assignments that relate to genre or type of task, and to the reference system used, are contained in individual unit assessment guides and in School Handbooks.

10.2.   Students are to submit the originals of their work. However, if required, students must be able to reproduce the work within a minimum of 24 hours in the event that the work is damaged or misplaced. If students cannot produce copies of assessment tasks upon request and within the parameters defined by lecturers, the work in question will be considered as not submitted and the appropriate penalties applied.

11.    Disabilities and Special Needs

11.1.   Provision is made for students with disabilities or special needs who indicate they wish to receive support regarding unit assessment. These provisions include alternative and/or modified assessment tasks and extensions to the dates for submission of assessment tasks. Arrangements regarding such provisions are made on a case-by-case basis[2].

11.2.   Special arrangements for examinations are covered in the Examinations policy.

11.3.   Two methods are available for students with disabilities or special needs to receive special consideration regarding assessment:

11.3.1.   a student may choose to approach a lecturer directly and make personal arrangements through the provisions of the Extensions policy; or

11.3.2.   a student can seek the assistance of the Disabilities Support Officer in arranging an alternative assessment or additional support for the prescribed assessment. This may include a revision of the dates for submission of assessment tasks.

12.    Appeals

12.1.   A student who is aggrieved by any process in respect to the provisions contained in this policy has the right to appeal through the Grievance Policy for Domestic Students – Academic Grievances or the Grievance Policy for Overseas Students.

1.      Assessment Submission and Presentation

1.1.      Students must keep back-up copies of all assignments which are submitted and a record of any electronic submission.

1.2.      When students are required to submit assessments via Turnitin™, they are required to create and submit a title page. Where possible, if there are several parts to an assessment, students should combine all similar types of documents into one document and limit the number of submitted items for each assessment.

1.3.      When submitting online it is possible to submit more than one file via Turnitin™.   The following file types are acceptable for submission: .doc, .docx, .pdf, .xls, .ppt and photo files. at present, Turnitin™ does not accept .pages (from a MAC computer) or zip files. The preferred file type is .pdf.  A receipt of submission is automatically generated and sent to a student’s CHC email account acknowledging the date and time of submission.

1.4.      Prior to the assessment item’s deadline students may upload their assessment as a draft submission. The content is automatically checked for originality against documents from other sources; for example, documents available for public access on the Internet, library databases, a CHC documents and institutional document archives (containing all assignments submitted to Turnitin™ by CHC staff and students), and the Turnitin™ Global Database, which contains documents submitted by other institutions around the world. After this checking process a similarity report the student to view and to make any necessary modifications to their assessment item.

1.5.      If students are required to resubmit an assessment online via Turnitin™, an additional portal will be available on their Moodle unit page for this purpose.

1.6.      Further instructions for online submission via Turnitin™ are available on the All things Moodle™ – Info and Help Moodle™ page, or students can contact the CHC Moodle™ administrator.

2.      Process to Apply for Special Conditions for Assessment Tasks through the Disability Support Officer

2.1.      Students with disabilities or special needs who require special consideration for assessment items should to contact the CHC Disability Support Officer via email at This must be done as soon as practicable.

2.2.      The Disability Support Officer will, within two working days from the receipt of the student’s email, liaise with the student and identify ways in which to facilitate the timely and satisfactory completion of assessment items or to propose a revised assessment schedule.

2.3.      The Disability Support Officer will, within a further two working days, notify the Lecturer, Unit Coordinator or Course Coordinator of any special request a student has made and provide a supporting statement for the request as appropriate (e.g. doctors certificate).

2.4.      The Lecturer, Unit Coordinator or Course Coordinator will discuss the assessment amendments with the Disability Support Officer and/or the student to ensure the best outcome is reached for the student and to ensure the judgements concerning the learning outcomes can be made effectively. The Lecturer, Unit Coordinator or Course Coordinator will amend the assessment task(s) and/or submission schedule as necessary.

2.5.      The student and Disability Support Officer will be notified of the outcome in writing within a further three working days.

Relevant Commonwealth/ State Legislation: Higher Education Support Act (2003)

Administrative Guidelines

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld)

Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF, 2015)


Implementation: Deans

Disability Support Officer

Compliance: Academic Board
Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning and Teaching Committee
Development and Review: Learning and Teaching Committee
Approval Authority: Academic Board
Interpretation and Advice: Learning and Teaching Committee


All Academic Staff

Academic Registrar

Disability Support Officer



Performance Indicators: ·     Reduced number of grievances regarding assessment issues

·     Increased satisfaction of students with assessment as indicated in the CHUEs.

Definitions and Acronyms: CHC

Christian Heritage College


Christian Heritage Unit Evaluations


A property or characteristic by which the quality of something may be judged. Specifying criteria nominates qualities of interest and utility but does not have anything to offer, or make any assumptions about, actual quality.


the head of the School administering a course, includes the Executive Director of the Millis Institute

Formative Assessment

Any assessment which is used to provide students with feedback about their progress throughout the semester but is not used to calculate the final exit grade.


the academic organisational units of CHC, includes the Millis Institute

Standard of performance

A definite level of achievement aspired to or attained. Standards of performance specify levels of quality (or achievement, or performance) for each criterion.

Summative Assessment

Any assessment used to calculate the final exit grade.

APPROVAL – section maintained by the Director of Standards and Quality

Reference No. Approved Date Committee/Board Resolution No. / Minute Ref.
B1/1210.1 Yes 2 December 2010 Academic Board 4.4

REVISION HISTORY – section maintained by the Director of Standards and Quality

Revision Reference No. Approved/Rescinded Date Committee/Board Resolution No. / Minute Ref.
0211 Revision Approved 17 February 2011 Academic Board 4.2
0311 Revision Approved 24 March 2011 Academic Board 4.2
0213 Revision Approved 7 February 2013 Academic Board 4.1
1216 Revision Approved 2 December 2016 Academic Board 4.1
0718 Revision Approved 12 July 2018 Academic Board 5.1
Go to Top