We recently hosted a successful series of webinars on Assessor Practice, with over 150 people attending from a number of schools, ITPs and PTEs.

The webinars shared three key pre- and post-assessment findings often seen by our Assurance team and discussed practices to support robust assessment decisions.  The webinars aimed to lift providers’ basis assessment practices in these areas.

Finding #1: CMR requirements not met by assessors

Seen across moderation, CTA, and Programme Endorsement applications, we frequently find that assessors don’t meet the requirements of the relevant CMR(s).

This finding was discussed in terms of –

• What assessors must hold – i.e. 4098, and any other requirements as specified in the CMR(s).
• The need for assessors to have a safe support system. For example, a well-developed assessor guide, and support within the workplace or through the wider network of assessors or providers.
• The importance of keeping training and assessment distinct. Although the trainer and assessor can be the same person, the intent and context for each of these roles must be distinct and different.

Finding #2: Resources not fit-for-purpose

We often receive moderation submissions that don’t cover all the standard(s) requirements, are based on expired versions of the standard(s), or are not appropriate for the context (e.g. an on-job assessment being used off-job or lack of guidance, etc.).

Examples of these were shown, and discussions centred on:

• The importance of internal pre-assessment moderation is to identify and, hence, fix any issues with the resource. This applies to resources that have been internally developed or externally purchased.
• The requirement is to have resources, again either purchased or developed internally, approved for use by the Standard Setting Body (WDC) once they have been internally pre-moderated.

Finding #3: Assessment judgements are inconsistent

Moderation submissions received often include examples of insufficient evidence (e.g. ‘tick boxes’, little or no commentary, ‘shallow’ answers, etc.).  Almost identical learner answers and/or ‘copy and paste’ answers from the assessor guide are also common.

As per the second finding, examples were shown, and discussions centred on the need to:

• Mark answers in line with the assessor guide
• Look for signs of plagiarism – do answers look similar to others? As per the assessor guide?
• Make sure good, constructive commentary is added e.g. where there are re-sits, and in general feedback, to support the ākonga to understand what they did well, what their next steps might be, etc.
• Use photos and/or video recordings where appropriate and relevant.

Key takeaways

Attendees were invited to share a key takeaway from the session.  Here’s a sample of some of them:

CMR Requirements

“That not only does an assessor need to have 4098 but be trade qualified to the same level or higher.”

Pre-moderation

“That it all starts with the pre-moderation process: good judgement statements and guidance can make the assessors’ job easier.”

“Importance of pre-mod of purchased resources.”

Post-moderation

“What sufficient and insufficient evidence looks like.”

“Great clarification on what are appropriate methods for practical assessments.”

“The reminder about the depth of answers was useful. Often our assessors only focus on right or wrong.”

“Ensure resubmission trail is clear.”

“Authenticity of assessment.”

Best practice

“Importance of tutor feedback that is constructive, not generic.”

“Continuous improvement – like the examples of good commentary.”

“That there a lot of outdated assessment methods still prevalent in Construction and Infrastructure – and opportunity to better align with aside”

Watch the webinar now

See more upcoming webinars and workshops