Assessment + Feedback

The University's policies and procedures for Special Consideration cover a variety of situations that may impact a student's performance.

Academic integrity is a vital topic when it comes to assessment and feedback in higher education. It is widely acknowledged that with the increased sophistication and easy access to assistive technology (such as AI-powered text/image generators) and increased pressures experienced by students to succeed, more and more learners are rationalising opportunities to gain an academic advantage over their peers (White, 2020). Ensuring academic integrity is essential for maintaining the standards of The University of Melbourne's degrees. With the emergence of generative Ai (genAi), the task of upholding academic integrity face new and constantly evolving challenges. To help reduce the risk of academic misconduct in online assessments, coordinators can take the following actions:

1. Use high-stakes assessment tasks with caution. Research has shown that cheating is more likely on heavily weighted, high-stakes tasks (Bretag et al, 2019).
2. Substitute high-stakes assessment with smaller, scaffolded or linked tasks. This allows students to receive feedback on their progress and for teachers to see examples of student work-in-progress.
3. Familiarise yourself with the types of academic misconduct that are commonly detected in ABP subjects. BEL+T has developed Academic Integrity Guidance that defines seven types of academic misconduct, with guidance on how to address suspicions of misconduct. These types have been updated to reflect the University’s revised Student Academic Integrity Policy, including how to differentiate between Poor Academic Practice vs Academic Misconduct.
4. Be explicit when explaining the expectations for how students should complete an assessment task. The following paragraph has been reviewed by the ABP Academic Support Office (ASO) as a message to students about collusion in open-book online exams.

The online exam on [insert date] is an individual assessment task. Students must complete the task without any input from other individuals. While the exam is open book, students are reminded not to share study notes or summaries of the lecture content. The University of Melbourne takes academic integrity seriously and provides advice here for students about how to avoid academic misconduct. There are serious consequences for students who commit academic misconduct. Penalties can include terminating or suspending the student’s enrolment. Details are provided here.

5. Require students to sign a plagiarism declaration when submitting assessment tasks. Coordinators can either provide students with the following text to include as part of their submission, including through Canvas submissions, or require students to use the ABP Coversheet.


By submitting work for assessment I hereby declare that I understand the University’s policy on academic integrity and that the work submitted is original and solely my work, and that I have not been assisted by any other person (collusion) apart from where the submitted work is for a designated collaborative task, in which case the individual contributions are indicated. I also declare that I have not used any sources without proper acknowledgment (plagiarism). Where the submitted work is a computer program or code, I further declare that any copied code is declared in comments identifying the source at the start of the program or in a header file, that comments inline identify the start and end of the copied code, and that any modifications to code sources elsewhere are commented upon as to the nature of the modification.

6. Use tools like Turnitin Similarity Report, which can be set up in Canvas for text-based assignments, to detect plagiarism. Click here for details.

Assessment design is an important aspect of pre-semester planning. This includes writing/reviewing the ILOs for each subject which are published in the University of Melbourne Handbook. Assessment tasks should be devised as a means for students to evidence the degree to which they have achieved each ILO. Subsequent assessment procedures can thus be seen as the search for this evidence. Through their engagement with these activities, “students develop and demonstrate the ability to judge the quality of their own work and the work of others against agreed standards” (Boud et al, 2009).

When providing submission instructions and details, consider doing the following:

• Cluster instructions into small, manageable chunks (e.g. according to the mode of submission).
• Use checklists to clearly communicate expectations for student submissions.
• Provide clear and explicit instructions on what is expected of students, and by what date and time.
• Consider including a hyperlink to the Canvas submission location.

Ideally, online assessment should consist of several small, low-weighted assessment tasks. This may require restructuring high-stakes assessments into smaller tasks. Here are some tips to keep in mind when revising previous assessment designs:

• Identify the reasons for the adjustments (e.g. changes in access to facilities, materials, or hardware).
• Refer to the subject ILOs.
• Review past assessments and student marks to identify areas that may need revision.
• Consider the online platforms and tools available.

In conjunction with designing assessment tasks to accurately evidence students' learning, there needs to be a means to record this evidence. Rubrics are rules for coding and recording the quality of student work (Griffin, 2018). It is essentially a "short-hand" method of recording what is being evaluated in the students' performance, production, communication, and/or written submission as required by the assessment task. It is important to note that these rules should focus on manifested student behaviour as observable evidence taking the form of what a student can do, make, say or write.

Effective rubrics give clear guidance to both assessors and students by providing a set of descriptions for what should be looked for as evidence of student learning in the assessment task. Furthermore, they provide students with guidance to continue to develop and improve their knowledge and skills. The act of developing a rubric is also a way of making implicit dimensions of assessment explicit to teachers to assist in marking and moderation. This transparency becomes all the more critical in contexts of remote assessment and in design-based tasks (Jones, 2020).

The language used to describe the levels of increasing competence is crucial in providing clear guidance to both assessors and students. Here are some helpful tips to use when beginning the process of designing or reviewing a rubric:

• Use cognitive or action verbs to start the criteria to emphasise the specific student behaviours that are being observed.
• Use verbs that clearly describe the differences between each level of competence.
• Minimise the number of words describing each level of competence
• Select words that will be meaningful to all users (both assessor and students) of the rubric
• Use discipline-specific, academic terms that are familiar to students
• Use clear, non-judgmental and positive language.
• Be consistent, fair and measurable.

Furthermore, collaborating with the teaching team in the design and review process is essential in creating a rubric that is useful for both assessors and students. The teaching team can provide valuable feedback on how to improve the quality of the language for future use, and the collaborative design process promotes peer accountability and ensures a shared understanding of the standards for student work. When collaborating in the rubric design/review process, it is important to keep in mind the following:

• Good quality rubrics should be clear, concise, and free of jargon, making them easily understandable for both assessors and students.
• Rubrics should be phrased using positive, supportive language that emphasises what the student is able to do, rather than using comparative or judgemental language.
• Successful rubrics are developed from a pool of draft criteria - write more than needed and then refine through the process.
• The design of the rubric is an ongoing process. Rubrics should be reviewed and updated regularly with feedback from both assessors and students.

Feedback plays a critical role in learning and achievement by providing students with guidance and direction to support their development. As such, it is important to consider the timing, communication method (i.e. written/verbal) and consistency and equity of feedback across members of the teaching team.

Though the content and quality of feedback provided to students is important, it is just as important to support the development of students' feedback literacy. Feedback literacy is a learned skill that enables students to comprehensively engage with feedback by allowing them to:

• Appreciate and understand the value of feedback
• Make judgments about the quality of their own work
• Manage their emotional response to feedback
• Take action in response to feedback (and close the feedback loop)

Educators can foster students' feedback literacy by structuring feedback as a roadmap for their learning journey. Effective feedback should ask and provide answers to these 3 questions:

1. Where am I going? (the goals)
2. How am I going?
3. Where to next?

For further guidance on how to support the development of students' feedback literacy, please check out BEL+T's Feedback Literacy & Practices guide.

Rubrics should be given to students at the start of each assessment task as a guide for their learning. They provide qualitative language (ideally using active verbs) for coding and recording evidence of learning and the quality of learning. This helps to clarify the assessment procedures by linking the learning objectives to grade bands and the intention of the assessment task for learning. Ultimately, a good rubric should give students an understanding of where they are currently in terms of their learning and guidance on what they need to focus on to improve and continue developing their knowledge and skills.

Digital rubrics can be created and used through Canvas. Instructions on how to set up Canvas Rubrics for assessments can be found via this link, and guidance on managing rubrics in courses can be found here. Keep in mind that some subjects may require adjustments to the default matrix system in Canvas. In these cases, subjects may use PDF files of assessment rubrics, which tutors can fill out digitally or by filling out printed copies and sharing scanned copies with students. Digital documents can be attached to assessments via Canvas Speedgrader. Note that if grades have been hidden from students, feedback and attachments will not be accessible until grades are published.

Student presentations and subsequent feedback can both be conducted synchronously, asynchronously or by mixing the two modes. Synchronous interaction can be beneficial for feedback that requires a more conversational approach, while an asynchronous method of allowing students to submit pre-recorded presentations can ease student concerns about public speaking and alleviate potential technical issues.

For asynchronous approaches, you can direct students to specific audio/video screencast software that you may already use yourself for delivery of content and feedback. Be sure to provide clear instructions on how students can upload video files to Echo360 on Canvas and share them with instructors. Teachers can then group uploaded videos in Echo360 and provide any external reviewers with a link.

For synchronous presentations, consider requesting students to submit their slides and scripts as a backup in case of technical difficulties. For further guidance on asynchronous and synchronous presentations and providing feedback on online presentations, visit the Learning Environments' assessment and feedback pages.

Design studio reviews can present unique challenges when conducted in virtual or blended environments. To address this, the following document has been designed to provide studio leaders and/or subject coordinators guidance regarding general good practice in both on campus and online delivery of Design Presentations and Reviews. The document also contains a BEL+T developed a flowchart to aid in the coordination of online design reviews. The flowchart illustrates the various steps and key decisions involved in this process.

Planning Assessment in the Design Studio

After further input from studio tutors, BEL+T developed a flowchart to aid in the coordination of online design reviews. The flowchart illustrates the various steps and key decisions involved in this process.

Coordinating Online Reviews Flowchart

Instead of simply transferring the traditional design review format to an online environment, the ideal approach incorporates the benefits of both asynchronous and synchronous modes of interaction and assessment to enhance learning. This experience may forever change the model for final design reviews for the benefit of all.

One of the most fundamental modes of interaction and assessment in our Faculty, and design-based subjects in particular, is the “desk crit”, in which students and tutors engage in live, informal but critical discussions about ongoing work. This dialogue between tutor and student can be conducted effectively in a physical space (on campus) and in a digital environment (online). Engaging in this informal mode of engagement in either learning environment requires consideration and ideation around the structure of the dialogue content and coordination of how the conversation will occur.

Tutors and students who are new to either form of desk crit may need to learn about the required processes to facilitate this interaction, including:

• what mode of communication the work will be presented as (e.g. physical print out, digital image on an online whiteboard)
• how the feedback will be delivered (e.g. verbal feedback, annotations on works, marked rubrics)
• when this feedback will be delivered (e.g. synchronously during class, asynchronously through digital sticky notes/comments)

Rubrics should be given to students at the start of each assessment task as a guide for their learning. They provide qualitative language (ideally using active verbs) for coding and recording evidence of learning and the quality of learning. This helps to clarify the assessment procedures by linking the learning objectives to grade bands and the intention of the assessment task for learning. Ultimately, a good rubric should give students an understanding of where they are currently in terms of their learning and guidance on what they need to focus on to improve and continue developing their knowledge and skills.

Digital rubrics can be created and used through Canvas. Instructions on how to set up Canvas Rubrics for assessments can be found via this link, and guidance on managing rubrics in courses can be found here. Keep in mind that some subjects may require adjustments to the default matrix system in Canvas. In these cases, subjects may use PDF files of assessment rubrics, which tutors can fill out digitally or by filling out printed copies and sharing scanned copies with students. Digital documents can be attached to assessments via Canvas Speedgrader. Note that if grades have been hidden from students, feedback and attachments will not be accessible until grades are published.

Moderation is one of the most powerful research-based strategies for linking assessment to improved pedagogical practice in education. The moderation process supports the development of a consistent understanding of what learning looks like by examining examples of different types and quality of students' work and evaluating their alignment with formalised criteria and/or standards (e.g. rubrics) (Bloxham, Hughes and Adie, 2016; Adie, Lloyd and Beutel, 2013). This process can either be conducted among educators or between educators and students.

The key purpose of moderation include:

1. Equity: ensuring consistency and fairness for students by establishing a common understanding of standards across all assessors.
2. Justification: establishing a credible and robust rationale to support the decision-making of what is considered as evidence of learning.
3. Accountability: ensuring that all assessors adhere to established assessment marking requirements (e.g. marking protocols, alignment with rubric criteria) and meet desired outcomes (e.g. acceptable grade distribution).
4. Community building: providing an opportunity for teachers to collaborate and review standards of what learning looks like. This collaboration allows for the potential to (re)calibrate educators' judgement by sharing interpretations of criteria and standards, which may identify areas for improvement in assessment and rubric design.

Moderation meetings

When planning moderation meetings, it is useful to design meeting protocols that will ensure a robust, productive discussion to establish a collective understanding and process amongst the teaching team on how the assessment(s) will be evaluated. These can include:

Pre moderation Protocols:

• Consider conducting a short session to collectively mark one or two projects within a subject or cluster to establish a baseline for assessment against criteria.
• Nominate moderation meeting chair/s and articulate the role of moderation
• Consider groupings within the subject (whole subject, cluster, group of 3) that enable effective marking and room for discussion.
• Select a format that enables cross referencing (Pin Up, Canvas, Miro).
• Make a note of projects that are below pass for double marking.

Meeting Process Protocols:

• Allocate notetakers
• Set out an approach (for example a selection of projects from each level, cross section of each tutorial, review of borderline)
• Focus on projects and their qualities to seek evidence of learning.
• Review and discuss implications of any changes.
• Establish a ‘parking lot’ for assessment criteria/rubric feedback to return to after the moderation session.
• Follow up and make any changes
• Dividing the marking of assessment tasks into sections and assigning each section to a different assessor, rather than having one person mark the entire assessment piece for the entire team. For example, one assessor could evaluate all responses to a specific question for the whole cohort.
• Scheduling moderation meetings where the highest and lowest grades are discussed in order to establish consistency in the marking practices of the teaching team.

One of the most fundamental modes of interaction and assessment in our Faculty, and design-based subjects in particular, is the “desk crit”, in which students and tutors engage in live, informal but critical discussions about ongoing work. This dialogue between tutor and student can be conducted effectively in a physical space (on campus) and in a digital environment (online). Engaging in this informal mode of engagement in either learning environment requires consideration and ideation around the structure of the dialogue content and coordination of how the conversation will occur.

Tutors and students who are new to either form of desk crit may need to learn about the required processes to facilitate this interaction, including:

• what mode of communication the work will be presented as (e.g. physical print out, digital image on an online whiteboard)
• how the feedback will be delivered (e.g. verbal feedback, annotations on works, marked rubrics)
• when this feedback will be delivered (e.g. synchronously during class, asynchronously through digital sticky notes/comments)

The goal of formative assessment is "to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching and by students to improve their learning" (Eberly Center, 2020). This makes formative assessment a “low-stakes” endeavour as opposed to “high-stakes” summative assessment tasks like end-of-semester exams. Be sure to visit the Learning Environments page on during-semester digital assessment options for University-wide guidance.

Formative online quizzes are an effective, low-stakes mechanism for gauging student progress. Quizzes can be managed through Canvas. The University also provides full licenses for the Microsoft Office 360 suite, which contains useful e-learning tools for students to use in their assessment tasks. For example, Microsoft Sway is a quick and easy way for students to design blogs or newsletters.

Student presentations and subsequent feedback can both be conducted synchronously, asynchronously or by mixing the two modes. Synchronous interaction can be beneficial for feedback that requires a more conversational approach, while an asynchronous method of allowing students to submit pre-recorded presentations can ease student concerns about public speaking and alleviate potential technical issues.

For asynchronous approaches, you can direct students to specific audio/video screencast software that you may already use yourself for delivery of content and feedback. Be sure to provide clear instructions on how students can upload video files to Echo360 on Canvas and share them with instructors. Teachers can then group uploaded videos in Echo360 and provide any external reviewers with a link.

For synchronous presentations, consider requesting students to submit their slides and scripts as a backup in case of technical difficulties. For further guidance on asynchronous and synchronous presentations and providing feedback on online presentations, visit the Learning Environments' assessment and feedback pages.

Design studio reviews can present unique challenges when conducted in virtual or blended environments. To address this, the Directors of the MSD and Bachelor of Design, in consultation with BEL+T and Pathway/Program Coordinators, have created guidelines for conducting online reviews.

Planning Assessment in the Design Studio

After further input from studio tutors, BEL+T developed a flowchart to aid in the coordination of online design reviews. The flowchart illustrates the various steps and key decisions involved in this process.

Coordinating Online Reviews Flowchart

Instead of simply transferring the traditional design review format to an online environment, the ideal approach incorporates the benefits of both asynchronous and synchronous modes of interaction and assessment to enhance learning. This experience may forever change the model for final design reviews for the benefit of all.

The Central Exams Unit and Learning Environments will prepare Canvas exam shells for scheduled online exams. Please note that there is a range of support and resources available to assist subject coordinators.

The Learning Environments website offers guides and an overview of different assessment options. Options include LMS Assignments, LMS Quizzes, and external tools (Gradescope and Cadmus).

Please check the live workshops and webinars offered by Learning Environments for targeted sessions. Drop-in sessions are offered to assist with the setup of exams, and pre-recorded webinars are also available.

Additional resources to support digital exams are available on the Digital Assessment website. The Central Exams Unit has also prepared a Guide for Semester 2 Exams – Subject Coordinator (intranet access required).

When writing exams, please be sure to consider copyright issues. The Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education has produced guidance on moving from closed-book to open-book exams. Additionally, use the Exam Content Checklist to confirm that the subject exam is ready.

For any technical inquiries, please submit a request to the Learning Environments team via ServiceNow.

Feedback plays a critical role in guiding learning by identifying areas of development and progress. Good feedback plays a crucial role in guiding learning by identifying areas of development and progress. It allows students to reflect on not just their grades, but also their learning process, enabling them to evaluate their own methods and approaches to learning (Griffin, 2018). Modes and methods of providing meaningful feedback are particularly important in an online learning environment, where opportunities for delivery of informal feedback are limited.

Written feedback is a useful way of highlighting to students how their work aligns to specific criteria in assessment rubrics. Individual feedback can be tailored and delivered directly through Canvas or Gradescope. Alternatively, general comments can be shared with the entire subject cohort. Such general comments on cohort-wide progress can help frame widespread challenges and achievements, whilst also being an efficient way to deliver feedback (see Poyatos-Matas & Allan, 2005).

Recorded audio/video comments can also provide students with detailed formative feedback in relation to specific criteria. Screencast feedback brings together audio/video with the ability to narrate annotations of student work (VoiceThread, FastStone and OBS Studio are software used by ABP colleagues to record feedback). Often, annotating student work is the most appropriate means of providing directed feedback. Depending on whether the work is written or graphic, there are different cloud-based platforms suited for producing annotations. Perusall is designed for annotating written work, whereas collaborative whiteboard platforms (such as Miro, Mural, and Conceptboard) allow annotations on graphic work. For the latter, a tablet with an accompanying stylus is helpful.

Peer-to-peer feedback can serve multiple purposes: providing alternative perspectives of a student’s work, improving generic skills related to criticism and encouraging interaction between students. Tutors will need to consider the appropriate platform, whilst providing some form of scaffolding and terms of engagement to guide students (e.g. using the ladder model, reflective questions, etc.). Perusall and Feedback Fruits allow for anonymous feedback, which is found to be preferred amongst students (Razi, 2016). For peer-to-peer feedback to be most effective, this form of interaction ideally should be an assessment requirement (i.e. via a reflective journal). ePortfolio in Canvas is an effective platform to facilitate students in developing and curating their journals and provide comments and feedback to each other (Gordon, 2017). Depending on the cohort of students involved, encouraging voluntary participation in peer-to-peer feedback can be challenging. However, students often prefer peer-to-peer feedback to be part of their assessment (Fleischmann, 2019). Self-assessment activities also offer valuable benefits to students (visit the Teaching and Learning Innovation page on self-assessment).

“[Timely] feedback ensures that students receive immediate reinforcement and recognition of their efforts, which is essential for maintaining engagement and motivation.”
Fischer et al. (2025)

In addition to the quality of feedback content, students need feedback delivered in a timely manner. The time period between submitting an assessment and receiving feedback determines how successfully students will engage with their feedback literacy. i.e. how well they will assimilate feedback to determine what next steps to take (Crisp, 2007; Orsmond et al., 2005). Furthermore, evidence demonstrates that timely feedback impacts students’ ongoing motivation by reinforcing their confidence through immediate and actionable insights into their performance (Fischer et al., 2025; Carless & Winstone, 2023).

When determining turnaround timeframes of delivering feedback, educators are challenged to balance effective instructional information to students against available resourcing. Educators should also consider the following key factors during their decision-making process:

University Policy
The University’s Assessment and Results Policy (MPF1326) states the following with regards to timing and timeliness of feedback:

4.28. Assessment must be balanced to provide diagnostic, timely and meaningful feedback on formative assessment tasks, as well as summative judgments about academic performance.

4.59. Students must receive ongoing feedback during the placement, provided by the placement coordinator and/or host supervisor.

4.62. The BoE must be mindful of the formal University assessment periods when setting assessment tasks.
(b) In first year undergraduate subjects, at least one assessment component must be set so that it is submitted, marked and returned to the student within the first 6 weeks of the teaching period to allow students to act on the feedback in preparation for final assessment.

Assessment and/or Task Purpose

Scholarship on assessment and feedback encourages educators to carefully consider the purpose of the assessment and/or task when determining how quickly feedback is provided to students. Though research on assessment and feedback primarily concur the delivery of feedback close to when student work is completed to be most effective, it also depends on the type of cognitive learning the assessment/task is designed to scaffold. A good way to determine which cognitive level the assessment is designed to engage students in is to refer to the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs).

The following provides some general guidance regarding different timings of feedback in relation to the complexity and purpose of the assessment/task:

The End of Semester Survey asks students to rate whether they have received “useful feedback on my progress” for the subjects they undertook that teaching period. Based on their feedback, BEL+T has produced a set of Tactics for Useful Feedback that is based on what ABP students look for in “useful” feedback. This guidance can be found on BEL+T’s Student Learning Surveys page under Q3. I received useful feedback on my progress.