The following comments are examples of the types of comments that would contribute to the discussion about quality of a subject with the convenor and School Assessment Committee.
You can use these comments as a guide remembering that your comments will appear in the SAC minutes and so should be phrased appropriately and explicitly about issues and events in the subject you have moderated.
Reflection by moderator to convenor or SAC – M&G examples of notes
- This subject has been actively moderated by the Field Education Coordinator throughout the year. Changes have been made in the training of academic liaison staff so that they are better prepared to use the feedback tools, and to be more consistent. More rubrics will be included for next year (XXXX).
- Assessment 2 case study wording needs reviewing. Some of the questions in the Assessment 3 & 4 tests needs reconsidering.
- Additional thought needs to be given as to how to make marking more even across the cohorts. Maybe assessments BI assessments should be marked by PT I SC for example. More swapping of assessments for marking rather than just moderating.
- This subject needs to be rewritten, and I am happy to contribute to that process if required. The subject in its current iteration is not fit for purpose, and would not assist future workers in their practice.
- I haven’t seen any assignments. I have to take the subject convenors’ word that his moderation processes were successful.
- I mark exams in this subject as well as moderate it, and I am sorry to have to say that I strongly agree with everything that the subject convenor has said above. There is a matter of serious concern here and it is not that the subject is too difficult (it is not, given the relatively small amount of material covered and the high levels of structured support offered to students by an academic staff member who has been formally recognised as one of CSU’s best teachers). It is that those students who fail show no signs of having the capacity to reach the professional standards required of a xxxxxx worker given the time available in their degree. So are we admitting them knowing that there is a high degree of probability that they will ultimately be unsuccessful in attaining their degree, or are we planning to drop the standards required of professionals who will go on to work with many of the most vulnerable people in our community? Neither of these look like an acceptable option to me and I would ask the School Assessment Committee to keep these concerns in mind as it reviews the students’ results and the moderation process for this subject.
- I don’t think that the 20% of FL grades this year indicate anything wrong with the assessment process – just a year-to-year anomaly in a small cohort (in 201530, 15% – 3 students – received an FL grade, and in 201430, no-one received an FL grade).
- Review of assessment tasks prior to next offering.
- Usual revision of assessment tasks and rubrics should occur before next delivery of the subject.
- As a result of student feedback the Subject Coordinator is suggesting a revision to the learning materials of this subject including textbook and assessment items. I would also recommend this process to occur.
- Subject convenor suggested that a revision of the assessment tasks and additional support may be necessary. The team could also considering alternate textbooks.
- The subject may need a major update or rewrite, considering its issues raised by the SC, and the recent developments in the field (e.g., inclusion of multimodality).
- It is suggested that reviewing the subject outline including Overview, Learning Outcomes, and Assessment be reviewed. The subject content may also require tweaking or updating to meet alignment.
- I agree that the assessment and marking criteria may need some fine-tuning for the next iteration.
- Good practices adopted that highlights reflective practice. Any amendment to assessment and rubrics should be done in consultation with relevant DLT support and mapped against wider course and accreditation requirements.
