Supervised assessment is being introduced in 2026 as part of the University’s broader focus on course-level coherence, assessment integrity, and a clear, high-quality student experience.
We recognise that staff may have practical questions about design, delivery, workload, student support, and policy requirements. This FAQ has been developed to provide clear guidance and reassurance as implementation progresses.
At Charles Sturt University, supervised assessment is a locally defined approach that supports secure evidence of student learning and academic integrity within the broader expectations of the Higher Education Standards Framework and TEQSA guidance.
Supervised assessment involves real-time interaction between the student and assessor (in person or online) and/or direct observation of student performance and action during controlled assessment processes.
The emphasis is on what students are able to demonstrate, explain, or apply, rather than on monitoring their physical environment.
No.
There is no mandated format for supervised assessment, and this is not a shift to universal exams or online proctoring. Proctoring monitors the testing environment, whereas supervised assessment involves interaction, observation, or discussion of learning.
Schools can select approaches that best fit their discipline, teaching model, and student cohort.
Depending on the discipline and subject, supervised assessment may include:
Many subjects already include supervised elements.
Yes. Non-supervised assessments remain a vital and valued part of Charles Sturt’s assessment approach.
They play a key role in:
Supervised and non-supervised assessments are intended to work in partnership, not in competition.
Supervised assessment complements existing assessment design and does not require wholesale redesign of all subjects.
Supervised assessment has been prioritised because it focuses on demonstration and discussion of learning, rather than surveillance of the testing environment. While online proctoring is one possible approach, it raises concerns about:
Supervised assessment allows disciplines to design approaches that are pedagogically meaningful, inclusive, and aligned with learning outcomes, while still providing verified evidence of learning.
There is no expectation that all subjects adopt the same approach, and proctoring is not being mandated.
The approach responds to:
The transition is staged and achievable, with an emphasis on staff support, feasibility, and student experience. This approach supports both academic integrity and student confidence in the value and credibility of their degree.
Supervised assessment in 2026 represents an important step toward strengthening course-level assurance of learning over time, consistent with the broader Models of Engagement and Assessment (MEA) direction.
By the end of 2026:
Many courses already meet some or all of these expectations.
For students with a full-time study load, supervised assessment is expected to be included in two subjects per session, rather than being concentrated within a single subject.
This means that:
This approach supports fairness, reduces assessment intensity within individual subjects, and aligns with the longer-term move toward course-level assurance of learning. Course teams and Heads of School will support decisions about which subjects are most appropriate to include supervised assessment in each session.
Not automatically.
Supervised assessments will only be designated as hurdle tasks if they meet the existing criteria outlined in Clause 17 of the Assessment Policy. There is no blanket requirement for supervised assessments to be hurdles.
Supervised assessment supports assurance of learning, whereas hurdle assessment is used to confirm minimum competence to proceed, and the two are not automatically linked.
Engagement in supervised assessment planning is expected to align with existing academic workload allocations. Workload and feasibility have been central considerations in the design of the supervised assessment approach.
Supervised assessment does not need to be lengthy, resource-intensive, or additional to existing assessment. In many cases, supervised approaches can be:
Support is available for assessment redesign, scheduling, and planning, particularly for large cohorts, asynchronous delivery, and marking moderation. Faculty leadership teams and the Division of Learning and Teaching will work with course teams to consider workload impacts and identify feasible, discipline-appropriate approaches.
Where an assessment includes both a written component and a supervised (e.g. oral) component, clear sequencing and communication are essential.
Good practice includes:
There is no single required model. Decisions should be guided by clarity, feasibility, and student experience rather than uniformity.
The standard requirements for the return of assessment work and feedback apply equally to supervised and non-supervised assessments.
Under the Assessment Policy and the Assessment – Conduct of Coursework Assessment and Examinations Procedure, staff are required to provide prompt, constructive feedback to support student learning. The standard return timeframe for assessment is:
Where an assessment includes both a written component and a supervised component (for example, an oral or practical task):
The inclusion of a supervised or oral component does not, in itself, alter return time expectations. Decisions about sequencing and feedback should be guided by clarity, feasibility, and student experience, in line with existing policy requirements.
Thoughtful assessment design, such as separating preparatory and supervised components or using brief, focused supervised tasks, can support timely feedback without increasing marking burden.
Large cohort subjects require thoughtful logistical planning, but they are not inherently incompatible with supervised assessment.
In many cases, the logistical considerations (such as scheduling, staffing, and platform setup) are extensions of existing large cohort coordination rather than entirely new requirements. Supervised assessment in large cohorts may involve staggered sessions, group-based formats, structured oral components, or practical demonstrations designed at scale.
Not every large cohort subject will necessarily be the most suitable location for supervised assessment. The focus remains on assurance of learning and course-level coherence. Course Directors and Heads of School should consider where supervised assessment is most strategically placed across the course.
Not necessarily.
Supervised assessments do not automatically require new or separate rubrics. In many cases, existing rubrics can be used without change, particularly where the supervised component is assessing the same learning outcomes or criteria as an associated written, practical, or applied task.
What matters most is that the rubric:
In some cases, minor adjustments may be helpful, for example:
There is no requirement to introduce separate rubrics solely because an assessment is supervised. Decisions about rubric design should be proportionate, discipline-appropriate, and guided by clarity rather than compliance.
DLT and Faculty leadership teams can support staff where rubric refinement is helpful or where supervised assessment introduces genuinely new forms of evidence of learning.
Where a single assessment includes multiple components (for example, a written submission and a supervised oral or practical component), weighting and grading must be transparent and clearly communicated to students.
Students should be able to clearly see:
Failure decisions should be based on overall alignment with subject learning outcomes, rather than on the format of any single assessment component. Where a supervised component is embedded within a broader task, performance should be considered proportionately in relation to the total weighting.
Moderation requirements for supervised assessments are the same as for any other coursework assessment. The Assessment Policy requires that the marking of at least one major assessment task be moderated in each session’s delivery of each coursework subject. Supervised assessment does not create additional moderation obligations beyond this requirement. Moderation involves checking the consistency of marking against the marking guide, including criteria and standards, within and across:
Where a supervised assessment is the most heavily weighted task in a subject, it may be selected for moderation in that session. Where two tasks are equally weighted, the Head of School determines which task is moderated, in consultation with the moderator. For supervised assessments:
Moderators are appointed by the Head of School or nominee and must not moderate their own marking. Moderators may be drawn from within the teaching team, elsewhere in the University, or externally, in line with existing procedures.
Supervised assessment therefore sits within established moderation and quality assurance frameworks, rather than alongside or outside them.
Staff are encouraged to use plain, student-centred language, emphasise that most assessment remains unchanged, and focus on learning and clarity rather than regulation or AI risk.
Supervised assessment must be clearly indicated in the subject outline. Students should be told what to expect and how to prepare.
Clear communication and preparation are key to reducing student anxiety and supporting success.
Yes. Student-facing resources have been developed that explain what supervised and non-supervised assessment are, along with supporting information and FAQs.
These resources are accessible to students through the Student webpages and can also be referenced by academics via the Supervised Assessment webpage.
International and ESL students are a significant cohort across many programs, and their experience has been a key consideration in the design of supervised assessment. Supervised oral assessment can support these students by:
It is important to note that supervised oral assessment is not intended to assess presentation skills or spoken fluency unless these are explicit learning outcomes of the subject or profession.
Assessment criteria should focus on the demonstration of knowledge, reasoning, and capability, rather than language style.
To support inclusive practice, assessment design should also:
Inclusive design guidance and exemplars are available to assist teaching teams in this work.
Supervised assessments must be designed and implemented in ways that are inclusive, equitable, and consistent with approved study plans and reasonable adjustment requirements. Students with an approved study access plan are entitled to the adjustments specified in that plan, regardless of whether an assessment is supervised or non-supervised. This may include, for example:
Supervised assessment does not override existing study plans or reasonable adjustment obligations. For students who are neurodivergent, including those without a formal study access plan, good assessment design remains critical. This includes:
Where a supervised assessment presents challenges that cannot be reasonably addressed within the existing design, staff should:
Supervised assessment should support students to demonstrate learning, not create unnecessary barriers. Inclusive design and early communication are key to achieving this.
In most cases, no.
Under Clause 14(e) of the Assessment Flexibility Procedure, requests for extensions may be refused or referred to special consideration where the assessment task is an exam, laboratory, field, clinical, or other time-dependent task that is not practicable to reschedule.
Many supervised assessments fall into this category because they involve:
As a result, supervised assessments are generally not eligible for the automatic 7-day extension. Where a student experiences unexpected or serious circumstances that affect their ability to complete a supervised assessment, requests should be managed through special consideration, and escalated to the Head of School where required, particularly if:
Clear and proportionate evidence retention is required for supervised assessments, in line with existing assessment assurance practices. For oral supervised assessments, whether conducted online or on campus, a recording must be retained to support moderation, grade review, and quality assurance processes. In this respect, oral supervised assessment is no different from other forms of assessment, which also require sufficient evidence to support marking decisions and moderation where required.
For supervised assessments, staff should ensure that:
In practice:
Staff are not required to create additional documentation beyond what is necessary to support assessment judgement and moderation.
Where there is uncertainty about recording, storage, or access arrangements, staff should seek guidance from Faculty leadership or DLT.
Yes.
Feedback and review are embedded in the implementation approach at both local and institutional levels and are supported through QUASAR processes. This includes:
Feedback from staff and students, alongside insights captured through QUASAR moderation and reflection processes, will be used to support continuous improvement and ensure supervised assessment is implemented in ways that are pedagogically sound, feasible, and equitable.
Many accredited courses already include supervised elements such as practical assessments, placements, or observed performance.
Schools can design supervised approaches that align with:
DLT and Faculty leadership teams will support alignment where accreditation requirements apply
Supervised assessment is not intended to be imposed without engagement. Implementation involves:
Some courses already meet expectations, while others will require redesign and support. The approach is intentionally staged to allow time for engagement, adjustment, and feedback.
What support is available for staff?
A growing suite of support is available, including exemplars, inclusive design guidance, strategies for large cohorts, scheduling tools, and technical support, available through Faculty leadership and the DLT Curriculum team.
Who should staff contact with questions?
Staff should raise questions through their Associate Head of School L&T or Head of School, Sub Dean Learning & Teaching or contact the DLT Curriculum team for design and implementation support.