Assessment Policy

This policy sets out how AusISA conducts, invigilates, marks, and moderates assessments, and the standards of academic integrity expected of every candidate.

This policy applies to every assessed component of every AusISA activity, including examinations, supplementary examinations, assignments, reports, labs, practical exercises, group activities, reflections, and competition submissions.

This policy applies to all candidates, facilitators, markers, moderators, and invigilators involved in an AusISA assessment.

This policy must be read with the Participant Conduct Policy, the Facilitator Conduct Policy, the Complaints & Appeals Handling Policy, and the Fees, Refunds & Cancellations Policy.

Where an endorsing entity such as ASD owns or controls part of an assessment framework (for example, pass marks or certification requirements), that entity's requirements prevail to the extent AusISA does not control the matter.

This policy operates subject to applicable Australian law.

Assessment means any task, examination, assignment, lab, activity, or submission that contributes to a course outcome, certification, or competency decision.

Candidate means a participant undertaking an assessment.

Marker means the qualified instructor who marks an assessment in the first instance.

Moderation means a documented review of marking by an instructor other than the original Marker, to confirm that the marking is accurate, consistent with the marking matrix, and fair.

Invigilation means live supervision of an assessment, whether in person or by video.

Academic Misconduct means conduct described in section 7 of this policy.

AI Tool means any artificial-intelligence system, including large language models, coding assistants, and generative tools.

Assessments may be conducted online, in person, as assignments, as labs, as group activities, or in any other form appropriate to the course or activity.

The form, conditions, permitted materials, duration, and weighting of each assessment are stated in the relevant course or activity information before the assessment is undertaken.

Where an assessment is undertaken as a group activity, the course information states how individual contribution is assessed.

AusISA may offer supplementary assessments or re-sits for a course. Eligibility, scheduling, and fees for supplementary assessments are set out in the relevant course information and the Fees, Refunds & Cancellations Policy.

Reasonable adjustments to assessment conditions may be approved by AusISA Administration for candidates with accessibility needs. An adjustment must not compromise the integrity or standard of the assessment. Requests should be made to AusISA Administration as early as possible before the assessment.

Formal examinations are invigilated. In-person examinations are supervised by a facilitator or invigilator in the room; online examinations are virtually invigilated by video.

For a virtually invigilated examination, the candidate must be online by the stated check-in time (10 minutes before the examination start, unless stated otherwise), must have their camera on, and must keep their camera on for the full session. A candidate whose camera is off without an approved adjustment may have their attempt invalidated.

Examination access codes are provided during the check-in window, not before.

The invigilator may require the candidate to show photographic identification, confirm their environment by camera, and remain visible in frame for the duration of the examination.

The invigilator may direct a candidate to adjust their environment, and may pause or terminate an attempt where the integrity of the examination cannot be maintained. Any such action is recorded and reported to AusISA Administration.

Technical failure during an online examination should be reported to the invigilator immediately. Where a failure is verified and not attributable to the candidate, AusISA will offer a resumed or rescheduled attempt at no cost.

AI Tools are permitted in AusISA assessments by default. AusISA teaches contemporary practice, and the professional use of AI tooling is part of contemporary practice.

Where AI use is not permitted for a particular examination or assessment, or is restricted, the restriction will be made clear in the assessment conditions before the assessment begins. In that case, using an AI Tool contrary to the stated conditions is Academic Misconduct.

Regardless of whether AI Tools are permitted, the work a candidate submits must genuinely represent the candidate's own understanding and judgment. A candidate may be asked to explain or defend any part of their submitted work; inability to do so may trigger an integrity review.

Unless stated otherwise for a particular assessment, examinations are open book and candidates may reference any materials.

Where negative marking applies to any question format (for example, over-selection on multi-select questions), this is stated in the assessment conditions.

Candidates must complete assessments honestly. Academic Misconduct includes:

Cheating: any attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment, including:

Plagiarism: presenting another person's or system's work, words, code, or ideas as one's own without attribution, in any assessment where attribution is required by the assessment conditions.

Collusion: working with others on an assessment that the conditions require to be completed individually, beyond any collaboration expressly permitted.

Assessment content disclosure: disclosing examination content, marking materials, or lab solutions to any person, during or after a course, without AusISA's written consent. This obligation continues after the course ends.

Attempting, or assisting another person to attempt, any conduct in this section is itself Academic Misconduct.

Suspected Academic Misconduct is escalated to AusISA Administration; facilitators do not resolve integrity matters informally.

The candidate will be told the substance of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a finding is made.

Where misconduct is substantiated, AusISA may take action proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct, including a warning, a mark penalty, invalidation of the assessment attempt, failure of the course, withholding of a certification outcome, exclusion from future activities, notification of an endorsing entity such as ASD where certification integrity is affected, or referral to another authority where the conduct may be unlawful.

An interim hold may be placed on a result while an integrity matter is investigated.

A candidate may appeal a misconduct finding or penalty under the Complaints & Appeals Handling Policy.

Every assessment is marked by a qualified instructor against the applicable marking matrix.

Every marked assessment is then moderated by a second instructor, who was not the original Marker. This first moderation occurs automatically after marking, before results are released. Every candidate is entitled to it, and no request is needed.

After results are released, a candidate may request a further (third) moderation of their assessment. A third moderation is conducted by an instructor who was neither the Marker nor the first moderator, where practicable.

A requested third moderation is at the candidate's expense. AusISA will provide a written quote for the cost before the moderation takes place, and the moderation proceeds only once the candidate accepts the quote.

Where a candidate pays for a third moderation, the candidate may make any written statements they wish in support of their work, and the moderator will take those statements into account.

Where a third moderation occurs as part of a substantiated facilitator misconduct claim, it is conducted at no expense to the candidate.

A moderation may confirm, raise, or lower a mark. The outcome of the third moderation, where one occurs, is the final marking outcome, subject to any appeal on procedural grounds under the Complaints & Appeals Handling Policy.

Marking and moderation records are retained in accordance with the Record Management Policy.

Results are released by AusISA Administration. Facilitators do not release results directly.

Results for assessed courses are provided within 30 business days of the final assessment submission (P-009), unless the course information states a different timeframe. Supplementary examination results are released within the timeframe stated for the sitting (7 days for the IRAP supplementary examination).

Where an endorsing entity sets a validity window on results (for example, ASD's window for applying for IRAP endorsement), that window is stated in the course information.

Candidates must not misrepresent their results or what a result signifies, as set out in the Participant Conduct Policy.

AusISA Administration monitors compliance with this policy through moderation outcomes, invigilation reports, integrity investigations, and complaint data.

Facilitators' obligations in assessment administration and marking are set out in the Facilitator Conduct Policy and are monitored under that policy.

Any exception to this policy must be approved in writing by AusISA Administration before the relevant assessment, and will be recorded with the reason for the exception. Exceptions that would compromise a requirement imposed by an endorsing entity cannot be approved.

Participant Handbook (GOV-001); Participant Conduct Policy (GOV-002); Facilitator Conduct Policy (GOV-003); Complaints & Appeals Handling Policy (GOV-005); Record Management Policy (GOV-006); Fees, Refunds & Cancellations Policy (GOV-009); Participant Vetting Policy (GOV-011).

IRAP Policy and Procedures (ASD); IRAP Common Assessment Framework (ASD); Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)).

This policy is reviewed at least every 12 months (P-016), and earlier where an incident, endorsing-entity change, or continuous-improvement finding warrants an out-of-cycle review.