Course Content
Prepare for assessment moderation
This section of the unit emphasises the initial stages of assessment moderation in the VET sector, focusing on the strategic planning of moderation activities. It involves determining the specific purpose, focus, and context of these activities, which is crucial for ensuring their relevance and effectiveness. Based on this understanding, a suitable moderation approach is then selected to align with the identified needs. The process also includes the careful selection and confirmation of participants who will be involved in the moderation, as well as organising the necessary resources to facilitate the moderation activities effectively. This comprehensive planning stage lays the groundwork for a successful moderation process.
0/2
Lead assessment moderation
This part of the unit focuses on the active conduct and management of assessment moderation meetings within the VET sector. It involves facilitating meetings where candidate submissions are reviewed, feedback is formulated, and consensus on assessment outcomes is reached. Additionally, the section highlights the importance of providing ongoing support to participants throughout the moderation process to ensure effective participation and outcomes. It also emphasizes the need to meticulously record the details of the moderation activities as per organisational procedures. Finally, the unit mandates the presentation of the findings and recommendations from these moderation sessions to relevant stakeholders, ensuring that this is done within the specified timeframes set by the organisation. This ensures transparency, accountability, and adherence to organisational standards in the moderation process.
0/1
Prepare for assessment validation
This section of the unit addresses the process of assessment validation in the VET sector, starting with the identification of products that require post-validation. This determination is guided by the organisation's validation plan. The initiation of the validation process is then conducted in accordance with VET regulatory requirements and organisational procedures. The unit also involves defining the specific purpose, focus, and context of the validation activities, which is crucial for ensuring their relevance and effectiveness. Based on these determinations, an appropriate validation approach is selected, tailored to the identified needs. Additionally, the process includes selecting and confirming participants for the validation activities and organising the necessary resources. This comprehensive approach ensures that the validation process is thorough, relevant, and aligned with both regulatory and organisational standards.
0/3
Lead assessment validation
This segment of the unit outlines the facilitation and management of assessment validation activities within the VET sector. It focuses on conducting these activities in strict adherence to legislative and regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and integrity. The unit also stresses the importance of providing support to all participants throughout the validation process, ensuring their effective involvement and understanding. In addition, there is a significant emphasis on the accurate recording of the validation process, which must be done in line with VET regulatory requirements and organisational procedures. This ensures that all activities are properly documented and accountable. Finally, the unit requires the presentation of the findings and recommendations from the validation activities to relevant stakeholders, ensuring this is completed within the designated timeframes as specified by organisational procedures. This step is critical for informing improvements and maintaining transparency in the validation process.
0/3
Review assessment moderation and validation
This final part of the unit focuses on the review and improvement of moderation and validation processes within the VET sector. It involves actively seeking and thoroughly analysing feedback from participants on both the moderation and validation processes, ensuring this is done in accordance with organisational procedures. This step is crucial for understanding the effectiveness of these activities and identifying areas for enhancement. The unit also emphasizes the importance of self-analysis, where individuals assess their own performance in both moderation and validation roles. This reflective practice allows for a deeper understanding of personal strengths and areas needing development. Lastly, the unit entails a comprehensive review of both the participant feedback and the outcomes of personal performance analysis. This process is instrumental in identifying potential opportunities for improvement, ensuring continuous enhancement and effectiveness in moderation and validation practices.
0/1
TAEASS513 – Lead assessment moderation and validation processes
About Lesson
  1. In assessment validation, a wide range of evidence is gathered to ensure a comprehensive review. This evidence typically includes assessment tools and materials (like test questions, practical tasks, and marking guides), samples of student work, and records of assessment decisions. The nature of this evidence is diverse, encompassing both qualitative and quantitative data. Additionally, evidence collected from other parties plays a crucial role. This can include feedback from industry representatives, input from subject matter experts, and sometimes even feedback from the learners themselves. The scope of this evidence is to cover all aspects of the assessment process, ensuring it aligns with the competency standards and is fair, valid, and reliable. It’s not just about what is assessed, but how it’s assessed, ensuring the methods and criteria are appropriate for the competencies being measured. This comprehensive approach to evidence gathering allows for a well-rounded review of the assessment system, ensuring it meets both organisational and regulatory requirements.

 

  1. Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) determine the evidence required for specific training products by closely adhering to the guidelines set out in the relevant training package or accredited course. This includes aligning with the competency standards and assessment requirements specified therein. RTOs also consider regulatory requirements stipulated by national training authorities like the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA). In addition to internal assessment evidence (such as student performance data and assessment tools), RTOs may gather external evidence from industry stakeholders or employers to ensure the training’s relevance and applicability to current industry standards and workplace expectations.

 

In-depth process

Firstly, we acknowledge that the assessment evidence is everything that has been provided by the learner, and sometimes, a third party where applicable. We look at each piece of evidence in a logical manner. I usually start with the knowledge questions – though this is just a preference.

To ensure the evidence meets the rules, we must refer to a couple of documents – they are the mapping guide, and the assessor guide. The mapping guide will have a replication of the unit of competency, along with a numbering system that indicates what part of the unit each piece of evidence is considered to meet. For instance, the evidence from question one should cover the first knowledge evidence requirement, as well as partially cover some performance criteria.

We go through each one and see if they indeed do cover the competency standards by taking a critical view and asking “does this actually meet this requirement? If not, why?”

As we go through each, we then take note of any recommendation – such as “there should be more evidence for this or that”… “why is the answer provided missing this or that?”

At this time, we’re not re-writing the questions or any other parts of the assessment instruments. We’re just noticing any gaps and making recommendations.

We then move onto the practical assessments – such as portfolios, observations and third party reports. We take the same critical approach, and in addition, I like to ask “can this instruction or observation be misinterpreted? If so, what can we suggest?”

In this way we end up with a long list of small improvements based on a thorough critique of each piece of evidence and the question or observation being used to capture it.

As good as this process is, we can do better. We can also stop to consider HOW the evidence has been collected and ask “is this the best method to use here?” For example, we might have an observation that asks to capture what someone is thinking… like “The candidate considers learner feedback”. This is not appropriate, as we can never be sure what a learner is thinking. So it would be best to rephrase the observation or capture their thoughts in a question.