Logo

ASSESSMENT REVIEW TOOL

About This Document

This document provides a set of assessment review (also sometimes referred to as pre-validation) questions designed to support RTOs in reviewing the quality, validity and compliance of their assessment tools before they are implemented. It assists trainers and assessors in identifying potential gaps, ensuring alignment with unit requirements and meeting the revised Standards for Australian Harbour International College (AHIC), specifically Standard 1.3, Performance Indicator 2 (b).

Question Yes No N/A Comments
Has the application of the unit been taken into consideration?
Are the performance criteria met?
Have the performance evidence been met (for example, through observable tasks and/or projects that require evidence of a range of products)?
Have the knowledge evidence been met, through use of appropriate methods (for example, written questions, discussions, verbal questioning)?
Have the assessment conditions been met?
Are all of the foundation skills covered?
Are foundation skills either explicitly addressed or naturally embedded and observable?
If there are any pre-requisites, is this information listed in the tool?
Are all tools, templates and resources required for the assessment clearly identified and available?
Has the unit been developed or contextualised to meet the delivery mode (for example, are simulations provided for classroom context and are they realistic and relevant)?
Where applicable, are there detailed instructions for implementing simulations, including guidance for role play participants?
Where assessment evidence includes submission of video recordings, are instructions clear about how the student should frame recordings to ensure authenticity of evidence, consider privacy of others (particularly in workplace contexts or those where they may be working with vulnerable people), and submit recordings?
Are the instructions to students clear and sufficient?
Are instructions to assessors clear and sufficient?
Do tasks assess what they claim to assess?
Have relevant and sufficient benchmark responses and assessor guidance been provided for the assessor?
Will assessment judgments be reliable when administered by different assessors?
Is there clear guidance on how to record and evaluate performance across multiple attempts or assessment events?
Is assessment at the right level for the unit and fair (student is not expected to do more than unit requires)?
Your Details