National External Moderation Summary Report for 2008, Semester 1
Prescription: 235/635 Employment Relations
Introduction
This report provides a national perspective on the moderation of 235/635 Employment Relations.
Assessment materials from 16 Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs) were moderated for this prescription. There were eight submissions for prescription 235 and eight submissions for prescription 635. Nine submissions (56 percent) met the national standard.
The seven submissions that did not meet the national standard reflected some or all of the following. Numbers of submissions affected are shown in parentheses:
- incomplete submission of material (2)
- learning outcomes not assessed (2)
- learning outcomes not assessed at the appropriate level specified by the prescription(2)
- prescription weightings not adhered to (5)
- assessment conditions and instructions not sufficiently clear and appropriate (3)
- assessments not consistent with current good industry practice (2)
- marking schedules not allowing for a range of appropriate student responses (3)
- allocation of marks not sufficiently detailed to enable consistent marking (5)
- marking schedules not consistent with the requirements of the prescription and assessment materials (3)
- consistency of assessor decisions not verified (4).
Presentation of assessment materials
In general, the material was received in the correct format and was easy to follow.
Assessment grids
In many cases, assessment grids could be improved to show more clearly the relationship between assessment tasks, their components and the learning outcomes to which they are related. In some cases, it appeared that grids had been created and assessment weightings calculated after, rather than before, assessment tasks had been designed.
Learning outcomes
In some cases the material supplied did not clearly identify which learning outcomes were being assessed. Some submissions for 635 Employment Relations used the same assessments as had been previously used for prescription 235 Employment Relations. Consequently the changes in emphasis for some learning outcomes for 635 were not taken into account. In particular, note should be taken of the requirement that students need to draft an offer of employment, and that the emphasis with respect to negotiations has shifted from "carrying out" a negotiation to "critiquing and analysing" a negotiation.
Level of assessments
Some submissions required recall and comprehension only. Both 235 and 635 Employment Relations prescriptions require assessment to include application and problem solving.
Prescription weightings
Some assessments did not adhere to the prescription range of weightings.
Assessment conditions and instructions for students
Most assessments were clear in their conditions and instructions to students.
Consistency with industry practice
Most submissions included assessments that were consistent with industry practice. Up-to-date case studies, appropriate settings and terminology were used. However, some submissions were overly reliant on assessments requiring academic or legalistic understanding from students, rather than evidence of applied understanding.
Marking schedules
Some marking schedules lacked sufficient detail to ensure consistent marking over a number of student scripts.
Student work samples
Half of the student samples had been marked appropriately and consistently.
Conclusions
Those providers that submitted material that met the standard were of a high standard. It was pleasing to see assessments that reflect understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of Employment Relations and assessors who were able to adapt and devise contextualised assessments that prepare students to meet the demands of the contemporary workplace.
Page updated: 27 January 2009