Evaluating Quality Assessment Tasks 

Do the assessment tasks cover the curriculum I am aiming to cover?

1.       Outstanding Coverage of BSSS Accredited Courses

o   The suite of assessment tasks is strategically planned for alignment with Achievement Standards, unit goals and content descriptors. Assessments are not too big: assessing irrelevant content or criteria; nor too small: missing important content or criteria.

o   Assessment is strategically planned so that it does not distort the intent of the curriculum, aligning with and developing the skills evident in course goals.

o   The general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities are seamlessly integrated into the suite of assessment tasks.

2.       High Coverage of BSSS Accredited Courses

o   The suite of assessment tasks is thoughtfully planned. Assessments are not too big: assessing irrelevant criteria; nor too small: missing important content or criteria.

o   Assessment does not distort the intent of the curriculum.

o   The general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities are integrated into the suite of assessment tasks.

3.       Satisfactory Coverage of BSSS Accredited Courses

o   Assessment tasks are appropriately planned. Assessments are not too big: assessing irrelevant criteria; nor too small: missing important criteria.

o   Assessment does not distort the intent of the curriculum.

o   Assessment tasks provide opportunities to engage with the general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities.

4.       Minimal Coverage of BSSS Accredited Courses

o   Assessment tasks require refinement. Assessments are uneven. Some tasks are either too big: assessing irrelevant criteria; or too small: missing important criteria.

o   Assessment distorts the intent of the curriculum.

o   Assessment tasks provide minimal opportunity to engage with the general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities.

5.       No Coverage of BSSS Accredited Courses

o   Assessment tasks are unplanned. Assessments are uneven. Some tasks are either too big: assessing irrelevant criteria; or too small: missing important criteria.

o   Assessment extensively distorts the intent of the curriculum.

o   Assessment tasks provide little or no opportunity to engage with the general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities.

Are the assessment tasks reliable? 

Do they have a clear marking scheme or rubric?

1.       Outstanding Reliability

o   Assessment tasks and conditions are strategically designed to remove all sources of non-relevant variation in measurements.

o   It is a high priority that assessment conditions are clear, consistent, and enforced.

o   In units with multiple classes and teachers, consistency around messaging and assistance is ensured through embedded practice.

o   Marking schemes and rubrics are clear and unambiguous to ensure consistency in student and marker interpretation.

o   Consistency of marking is ensured through a range of moderation processes such as single marker of task or sub-task, double marking or sample double marking, utilising sample scripts/responses for all grade levels, or comprehensive in-school moderation or marking calibration activities.

o   Instructions/questions are clear and unambiguous to student interpretation.

2.       High Reliability

o  Assessment tasks and conditions are thoughtfully designed to remove sources of non-relevant variation in measurements.

o   Assessment conditions are clear and do not advantage or disadvantage individual students.

o   In units with multiple classes and teachers, consistency around messaging and assistance is considered.

o   Marking schemes and rubrics are clear and aim to reduce marker variation.

o   Consistency of marking is considered through processes such as single marker of task or sub-task, double marking or sample double marking, access to sample scripts/responses, or in-school moderation or marking calibration activities.

3.      Satisfactory Reliability

o   Assessment tasks and conditions are designed with some consideration of reducing sources of non-relevant variation in measurements.

o   The assessment and assessment conditions are discussed in units with multiple classes and teachers.

o   There is a marking scheme developed for the task and applied in marking.

o   Different markers discuss marking of concern to ensure consistency and have access to an answer key or sample answers.

4.       Minimal Reliability

o   Assessment tasks are designed with minimal consideration of reducing sources of non-relevant variation in measurements.

o   Assessment conditions could be interpreted differently by different students.

o   There is minimal discussion about the assessment between teachers of the same unit.

o   The marking scheme is underdeveloped and requires interpretation.

o   Different markers barely discuss the marking, or the answer key or sample answers are underdeveloped or incomplete.

5.      No Reliability

o   Performance in the assessment tasks is largely determined by sources of non-relevant variation.

o   Assessment conditions are not clearly stipulated to students and could be interpreted very differently by different students.

o   There is minimal discussion about the assessment between teachers of the same unit. There is no clear marking scheme.

o   There is no answer key or similar provided. Different markers do not discuss marking.

Are there any inherent biases evident in my assessment tasks? 

How will marking and moderating of the assessment ensure objectivity?

1.      Outstanding Bias Awareness

o   Assessment tasks are strategically designed to be sensitive and empowering for all students, catering for the diverse needs of gender, socio-economic status, disabilities and/or cultures.

o   The suite of assessment does not marginalise or favour a student or group of students, or advantage or disadvantage certain background knowledge or ways of thinking .

o   Intercultural understanding and consideration of alternate points of view is promoted in task design.

o   Highly considered modifications are made to assessment ensuring participation of diverse learners in a fair and equitable way.

o   Marking bias is strategically planned for and marking is based on evidence which utilises comprehensive practices to avoid bias.

2.       High Bias Awareness

o   Assessment tasks are designed that promote the diverse needs of gender, socio-economic status, disabilities and/or cultures that do not marginalise or favour a student or group of students.

o   Considered modifications are made to assessment which ensures the participation of diverse learners in a fair way.

o   Marking bias is planned for and marking is based on evidence which utilises practices to avoid bias.

3.       Satisfactory Bias Awareness

o   Assessment tasks are designed to meet the needs of the dominant culture, socio-economic group or gender, with evidence of minor alterations for genders, socio-economic status and/or cultures.

o   Straightforward modifications are made to assessment which ensures the participation of diverse learners.

o   Teachers are aware of marking bias and marking is generally based on evidence of learning rather than the personality of the student.

4.       Minimal Bias Awareness

o   Assessment tasks are designed to meet the needs of the dominant culture, socio-economic group or gender.

o   Simple modifications are made to assessment which ensures the participation of some diverse learners.

o   Teachers have limited awareness of marking bias and marking can be biased towards the personality of the student.

5.       No Bias Awareness

o   Assessment tasks are openly skewed to favour or marginalise a student or group of students.

o   No modifications are made to assessment.

o   Teachers have no understanding of marking bias and no effort is made to separate the personality of the student from the marking.

Have I catered for a range of ability by providing opportunities for a range of responses and thinking levels, using the necessary cognitive verbs?

1.       Outstanding Levels of Thinking

o  Comprehensive assessment tasks are designed that allow students to engage at progressively higher cognitive demands. Students are supported through a range of thinking levels and verbs clearly articulate cognitive requirements using a theoretical framework (such as Bloom or SOLO taxonomy) to underpin the thinking involved.

o   The suite of assessments demonstrates that there are high expectations for all learners at all levels of learning and opportunities for extending all learners are strategically planned for.

o   Higher order thinking skills such as creativity, problem solving, abstract thinking, and synthesis of ideas across concepts and domains are included and assessed in all tasks.

o   The suite of assessment tasks is flexible and varied, strategically utilising a range of assessment modes.

2.       High Levels of Thinking

o   Clear assessment tasks are designed that allow students to engage at progressively higher cognitive demands. Students are presented with a range of thinking levels and verbs articulate cognitive requirements using a theoretical framework (such as Bloom or SOLO taxonomy) to underpin the thinking involved.

o   The suite of assessments demonstrates that there are expectations for all learners at all levels of learning and opportunities for extending all learners are planned for.

o   Higher order thinking skills such as creativity, problem solving, abstract thinking, and synthesis of ideas across concepts and domains are included and assessed in tasks.

o   The suite of assessment tasks is flexible and varied, covering a range of assessment modes.

3.       Satisfactory Levels of Thinking

o   Assessment tasks are designed around the thinking progression of the Achievement Standard. Students are presented with a range of thinking levels and verbs articulate cognitive requirements.

o   The suite of assessments demonstrates that there are some expectations for most learners to extend their thinking at all levels of learning.

o   Questions allow for application of knowledge, understanding and skills and opportunity to demonstrate higher order thinking skills within the learning domain.

o   Assessment demonstrates some assessment modes.

4.       Minimal Levels of Thinking

o   Assessment tasks are limited for the top students who are unable to show the extent of their thinking.

o   The suite of assessments demonstrates that there are minimal expectations for learners to extend their thinking.

o   Questions are restricted and narrow in conception with minimal opportunity for the student to demonstrate higher order thinking skills or application of knowledge, understanding and skills.

o   Assessment is generally in one mode with some small changes to make each task different.

5.       No Levels of Thinking

o   Assessment tasks are one dimensional and do not encourage a range of thinking levels.

o   The suite of assessments demonstrates that there are no expectations for learners to extend their thinking.

o   Assessment is in one mode only.

Are my assessment tasks accessible and inclusive? 

Are they contemporary and relevant for student needs?

1.       Outstanding Student Engagement

o   The suite of assessment tasks are strategically planned to engage students through a range of methods such as connection to student lived experiences, interests, or prior knowledge; student autonomy; real world problems; contemporary issues; collaboration opportunities; or resemblance to activities conducted by real practitioners.

o   Success and what is being asked of the student in all aspects of the tasks are clear from the instructions and marking schemes.

o   There are extensive supports in place to ensure student wellbeing and engagement.

2.       High Student Engagement

o   The suite of assessment tasks aims to engage students through a range of methods such as connection to student lived experiences, interests, or prior knowledge; student autonomy; real world problems; contemporary issues; collaboration opportunities; or resemblance to activities conducted by real practitioners.

o   Success and what is being asked of the student in the tasks is clear from the instructions and marking schemes.

o   There are supports in place to ensure student wellbeing and engagement.

3.       Satisfactory Student Engagement

o   The suite of assessment tasks appropriately aims to engage students. This may include minimally utilising methods such as connection to student lived experiences, interests, or prior knowledge; student autonomy; real world problems; contemporary issues; collaboration opportunities; or resemblance to activities conducted by real practitioners.

o   Students have a rough idea what success in the tasks will look like and the path there.

o   There are adequate supports in place to ensure student wellbeing and engagement.

4.       Minimal Student Engagement

o   Not all assessment tasks aim to engage students. There is only token utilisation of methods such as connection to student lived experiences, interests, or prior knowledge; student autonomy; real world problems; contemporary issues; collaboration opportunities; or resemblance to activities conducted by real practitioners.

o   Students are rather unclear what success in the tasks will look like or there is little clarity surrounding what the student is expected to do in areas of the assessment tasks.

o   There are limited supports in place to ensure student wellbeing and engagement.

5.       No Student Engagement

o   The suite of assessment tasks do not aim to engage students.

o   Success in the tasks are unclear. There is a lack of clarity of what the student is expected to do in the tasks or how to begin.

o   There are no supports in place to ensure student wellbeing and engagement.

Is it easy for students to access someone else’s work and claim it as their own? How can I prevent this?

1.       Outstanding Academic Integrity

o   Students are required to engage in genuine deep learning at a level of challenge appropriate to the student and tasks make provision for sense making or knowledge construction. Assessment is designed to ensure authenticity from students and requires individualised responses.

o   Students are well educated as to what constitutes academic integrity as evident in a highly considered Program of Learning. Expectations in regard to plagiarism, assistance by others and referencing are made clear to students. Students declare that work is their own.

o   Assessment tasks are not reused. 

2.       High Academic Integrity

o   Academic integrity is discussed with students with expectations with respect to academic integrity and the consequences of cheating or plagiarising made clear.

o   Students are informed as to what constitutes academic integrity as evident in a considered Program of Learning.

o   Assessment is designed to encourage original thinking from students and require individualised responses that will be different. Expectations in regard to plagiarism, assistance by others and referencing are conveyed to students. Students declare that work is their own.

o   Assessment tasks are not wholly reused with important aspects changed. 

3.       Satisfactory Academic Integrity

o   Academic integrity is discussed with students in a general sense as evident in an appropriate Program of Learning.

o   Assessment is designed so that a majority of the assessment encourages original thinking from students or requires individualised responses. Expectations in regard to plagiarism, assistance by others and referencing are referred to in the assessment task description. A statement is included in the task description stating that submitted work is declared as own work.

o   Assessment tasks have some aspects changed from year to year.

4.       Minimal Academic Integrity

o   Minimal evidence of academic integrity processes in place.

o   Assessment allows for the possibility of identical responses from students. Expectations in regard to plagiarism and referencing are inconsistent or applied inconsistently. The assessment task does not state that submitted work is declared as own work.

o   Assessment tasks are largely the same from year to year.

5.       No Academic Integrity

o   Academic integrity is not mentioned in any documentation.

o   Assessment requires identical responses from students.

o   Expectations in regard to plagiarism and referencing are not addressed. Students do not make a declaration of own work.

o   Assessment tasks are the same from year to year.