====== Assessment policy ====== **Development-oriented assessment: from grades to words**\\ > **Summary** > //This page outlines the assessment policy of Fontys ICT. It serves as the foundation for assessment and grading across all our study programmes, in alignment with the Teaching and Examination Regulations (TER) and the Fontys Framework for Assessment Quality..//\\ >**Fontys RACI ICT** >//To learn more about how this page fits within RACI, see the domains [[https://raci.fontysict.nl/en/control/|Governance]] and [[https://raci.fontysict.nl/en/education/|Education]]//. ===== 1. Introduction ===== Assessment at Fontys ICT supports the development of students into competent ICT professionals. We believe that high-quality education goes hand in hand with thoughtful and fair assessment. Assessment is therefore more than a way to measure performance: it is a means to make learning visible, to stimulate development, and to safeguard quality. This assessment policy describes how Fontys ICT approaches assessment and grading in both full-time and part-time (Pro) programmes. It aligns with the [[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FFontys%20Kader%20Toetskwaliteit%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|Fontys Framework for Assessment Quality]] and reflects the principles of [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:studentnabij_onderwijs|Student centred education]]. The agreements outlined in this policy are also linked to the [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:oer|Teaching and Examination Regulations (TER)]]. The assessment policy provides direction for the design, implementation, and evaluation of assessment across all our study programmes. ==== Background==== At Fontys ICT, our assessment practices are based on the principles of programmatic assessment (Leren van toetsen, 2025). The focus lies on collecting rich information points (data points) about student development over time. Six core principles form the foundation of programmatic assessment: - Insight into student development arises from a mix of diverse data points. - Each data point is intended for feedback, not for a pass/fail decision. - Learning outcomes are the backbone of the assessment programme. - There is an ongoing dialogue around feedback and self-directed learning. - The number of data points is balanced with the weight of the decision. - The higher the stakes of the decision, the more assessor expertise is required. These principles guide us in designing assessment that not only supports well-founded decisions but, above all, enhances student learning. ===== 2. Vision and core principles ===== At Fontys ICT, we view assessment as a driver of learning. This chapter explains how we bring that belief into practice. ==== 2.1 Student centred education at Fontys ICT ==== Fontys ICT believes that students learn most effectively in meaningful, practice-oriented learning environments. Students engage in learning situations that closely resemble professional practice, where they are challenged to take initiative, collaborate, and reflect on their development. In doing so, they grow into inquisitive and adaptable ICT professionals who are both willing and able to continue developing themselves in an ever-changing world. The student is at the centre as the [[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FHandreiking%20navigeren%20door%20je%20leerproces%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|owner of their learning process]]. Students learn by doing, exploring, and collaborating on meaningful assignments, with room for personal choice and the opportunity to showcase their talents. Teachers guide this process in the roles of coach, expert, and critical dialogue partner. They encourage ownership, provide targeted feedback, and connect learning to professional practice. Assessment is not a separate event, but an integral part of the learning process: we look not only at the end result, but also at the path taken to get there (Van Berkel, Bax, Joosten-ten Brinke, & Van Schilt-Mol, 2023). In this way, assessment supports both development (formative; learning function) and sound decision-making (summative; decision function). The learning environment is designed to foster ongoing dialogue between students and teachers about learning, performance, and ambition. Feedback, reflection, and self-directed learning are central to this interaction, creating space for growth, both academically and personally. ==== 2.2 Assessment as a driver of learning ==== Our vision of student centred education is put into practice through the principles of programmatic assessment (Leren van toetsen, 2025). Throughout the semester, students collect various forms of feedback on a diverse set of evidence in their [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:portfoliobeleid|portfolio]]. Together, these pieces provide insight into their development. This information (referred to as data points) varies in weight and function, and is categorised into so-called low stakes, medium stakes and high stakes assessment moments. ====Low stakes==== During the semester, students regularly receive feedback on their development through learning and professional products. This takes place at scheduled moments, as well as informally during conversations or deliverables. The purpose of this feedback is to support learning and provide guidance, without immediate consequences. Students record this feedback in [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:feedpulse|FeedPulse]] and in their portfolio. ====Medium stakes==== At several points during the semester (at least three), the level of mastery for each learning outcome is made visible using the development-oriented feedback scale (see Table 1). This scale helps students and assessors gain a shared understanding of progress and make informed decisions for further development. Teachers record this progress and feedback in a rubric and comments within a Canvas assignment. ^ Level ^ Indicators ^ | Undefined | You have not yet undertaken activities to demonstrate the learning outcome. | | Orienting | You have made a start and explored the possibilities to demonstrate the learning outcome. | | Beginning | You have taken the first steps and carried them out which contribute to demonstrating the learning outcome. | | Proficient | You have shown several times that you have created a basis to demonstrate the learning outcome. You will demonstrate the learning outcome at a sufficient level, if you continue your development in this way. | | Advanced | You have shown several times that you have been working on this learning outcome with good results. You have performed above expectations and are focused on continuous improvement. You will demonstrate the learning outcome at a more than sufficient level, if you continue your development in this way. | Table 1. The development-oriented feedback scale. It is important to note here that this is an absolute scale. It is a snapshot of a student's current growth based on the established learning outcomes. It may therefore also be the case that a student's development is declining compared to the previous measurement moment, for example when he does not continue to show certain behaviour in practice that was determined earlier. ====High stake==== **//Preparation - The end conversation//** At the end of the semester, all collected feedback, learning and professional products, and reflections are brought together by the student into one complete whole: the portfolio. Assessment is therefore more than just a final step. It is an integral part of the learning process, focused on growth, quality, and always connected to the professional field we are preparing students for. In an end conversation, the assessors share their proposed final judgement with the student and record it in the portfolio assignment in Canvas. This proposal forms the basis for an integrated assessment by the assessors: a summative (high-stake) decision on whether the student has successfully completed the semester. **//Summative assessment - Assessor meeting//** At the end of the semester, the proposed final judgement is translated into a semester result. The assessors involved meet to jointly formulate a proposed grade (advice) for each student, using the scale: U (unsatisfactory), S (satisfactory), G (good), or E (excellent). The only fixed rule in this process is: if a student has achieved at least 'Proficient' for all learning outcomes, the result will be ‘Satisfactory’ or higher. All other cases are subject to the professional judgement of the assessor meeting. A result of S, G, or E means the student has passed the semester; a U means the student has not passed. During the assessor meeting, the overview showing each student’s proposed USGE-grade is central. All assessors jointly determine a summative, holistic USGE final grade for each student, based on the proposed judgement. This takes place in the presence of at least one topic owner (or delegate) of the educational unit and a representative from the Exam Board. The result is saved as a PDF, digitally signed by the chair of the meeting, and sent to the Student Administration. After the assessor meeting, the semester coach communicates the outcome to the student. In addition, the Student Desk formally emails the final result to the student. ===== 3. Assessment through the portfolio ===== Portfolio assessment aligns well with the [[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FFontys%20kader%20Talentgericht%20Onderwijs%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|Fontys framework for Talent-Oriented Education]] and [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:studentnabij_onderwijs|student centred education]]. In a [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:portfoliobeleid|portfolio]], students demonstrate what they have learned and how they have grown. They collect evidence of their development and explain the choices they have made. This results in a personal and authentic representation of their learning process. It reflects the focus on ownership, motivation, and meaningful learning within Fontys ICT. ==== 3.1 The portfolio as a basis for assessment ==== The portfolio contains validated (evidence-based) learning and professional products, reflections, and received feedback (low stakes). Throughout the semester, students demonstrate -at least three times- what they have learned in relation to the learning outcomes (medium stakes). The assessment of the portfolio is integrated: we look at the coherence between knowledge, skills, and professional attitude. The learning process itself also plays a role. This interim assessment is carried out by (at least) two assessors. Together, they arrive at a substantiated judgement of the student’s progress per learning outcome, using the development-oriented feedback scale (Table 1). Within the semester, there are at least three formative moments (medium stakes) during which assessors provide feedback on each learning outcome. The last of these three formative assessments takes place no later than two weeks before the assessor meeting (high stakes). This gives the student sufficient time to process and act on the feedback received. ==== 3.2 Making learning visible: diverse and meaningful evidence ==== What students submit may vary from person to person. They choose evidence that fits their individual learning path, their project, and the context in which they learn. What matters is that the evidence contributes to demonstrating the learning outcomes. Feedback and reflection help make this visible. In doing so, students learn not only what they can do, but also hów they got there. ===== 4. Quality of assessment===== Assessment at Fontys ICT should not only support student development, but also be fair, responsible, and feasible. To ensure this, we work with quality criteria (Van Berkel et al., 2023). These criteria help us design high-quality assessment and improve it where necessary. The four criteria are: validity, reliability, transparency, and feasibility. ==== 4.1 Validity: are you measuring the right things? ==== Validity means that you are actually measuring what you intend to measure. The final qualifications from the[[https://www.hbo-i.nl/publicaties-domeinbeschrijving/|HBO-i domain description]] and the learning outcomes form the starting point. Assessment does not focus solely on knowledge or understanding, but rather on how students apply these in practice. This is why the chosen form of assessment should align with the desired behaviour you want to observe in the student. The assessment is structured in increasing complexity, gradually working towards the final level. ==== 4.2 Reliability: are you measuring it well? ==== Reliability is about fair and careful assessment. We apply the four-eyes principle, meaning multiple assessors are involved in evaluating each student, and we ensure alignment through peer review and calibration sessions. This increases the consistency of judgements between assessors. We also consider the balance between the number of data points and the weight of the decision: the higher the stakes, the more data points and assessor expertise are required. The final assessment is made holistically: during the assessor meeting, assessors jointly review the portfolio and formulate a well-substantiated and shared final judgement based on all collected information. ==== 4.3 Transparency: do you know what is expected? ==== Transparency means that students have the right to clear information about what they need to demonstrate and how they will be assessed. From the start of the semester, we make the final qualifications, learning outcomes, assessment criteria, and assessment moments transparent. We communicate this repeatedly and in accessible language, ensuring that students understand how they can work on their development. Feedback is linked to the learning outcomes, so that students can grow purposefully towards the final level. ==== 4.4 Feasibility: doing what works ==== Feasibility means that assessment must be manageable and workable for students, teachers, and teams. This implies that the chosen assessment method fits the size of the semester and aligns with the available time and resources. We use standard formats and clear agreements on who is responsible for what within the assessment process.   //**Quality cycle**// Through regular evaluation, we maintain a clear view of the balance between quality and feasibility. We improve our assessment practices based on the experiences of students, teachers, and examination boards. By applying the quality criteria, we ensure the highest possible standard in our assessment. This enables us to provide a valid, reliable, and transparent judgement of each student’s learning process. At the end of the semester, the student’s portfolio serves as the assessment file, which substantiates whether the student has successfully completed the semester. The topic owner is responsible for these assessment files. ===== 5. Organisation and roles ===== Assessment is a shared responsibility. To ensure high-quality assessment, various roles within Fontys ICT work together. Each contributes to the quality and assurance of assessment from their own perspective. ==== 5.1 Management Fontys ICT ==== The management of Fontys ICT, together with the Examination Board -each from their own role- is responsible for the quality of education and, therefore, of assessment. The management is responsible for delivering the desired assessment quality and facilitates, guides, and monitors this quality. ==== 5.2 Examination Board ==== The [[https://https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:examencommissie/|Examination Board]]is responsible for safeguarding the quality of assessment and the final level of the study programmes. It ensures the correct implementation of the assessment policy, appoints assessors, verifies whether students have achieved the intended final level, and handles cases of academic misconduct. The board also monitors the procedures surrounding summative assessments, including those during the assessor meeting. ==== 5.3 Curriculum owners ==== The curriculum owners have an advisory role regarding the quality of education and, consequently, of assessment. They evaluate whether the assessment is well aligned with the learning outcomes and the content of the curriculum. In addition, they identify and discuss potential issues, and -both upon request and on their own initiative- make suggestions for improving the quality of education and assessment. ==== 5.4 ==== The [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:toetscommissie|Assessment Committee]] is tasked with promoting and safeguarding the quality of assessment within the organisation. It provides advice on the design and implementation of assessment, conducts audits, contributes to assessment innovation, and evaluates whether practice aligns with policy. In doing so, the committee acts as a link between management and the educational practice. Additionally, it plays a role in professional development, for example through coaching and workshops. ==== 5.5 Quality assurance officer ==== The quality assurance officer ensures that the assessment quality cycles are systematically carried out across all parts of the organisation, in order to maintain and improve the quality of assessment. ==== 5.6 Topic owner ==== The [[https://beleidswiki.fhict.nl/doku.php?id=en:beleid:rolbeschrijving_topic_owner&s%5b%5d=%2Atopic%2A&s%5b%5d=%2Aowner%2A|topic owner]] is responsible for coherence and alignment within the semester, including assessment. This means overseeing the connection between learning outcomes, educational activities, and assessments, and ensuring that assessment within the semester is valid, reliable, transparent, and feasible. The topic owner is also responsible for setting up and evaluating the assessment files. ==== 5.7 Teacher as assessor ==== Teachers are responsible for the core educational process, including assessment. When teachers are responsible for one or more assessment moments, and hold the required BKE/SKE qualification, they are referred to as assessors. ==== 5.8 Students ==== Within a strong assessment culture, the student takes ownership of their development and thus contributes to the quality and meaning of assessment as an integral part of learning. ===== 6 .Professionalisation and assessment expertise===== The quality of assessment depends on the expertise of the people involved. Fontys ICT therefore actively invests in the professional development of teachers, assessors, assessment committees, and workplace supervisors. Every teacher at Fontys ICT develops their assessment expertise through activities such as calibration sessions, peer consultation, and formal training. Within one year of employment, teachers obtain their Basic Qualification in Education (BDB). Within three years of permanent appointment, they obtain their Intermediate Qualification in Education (MKO). To take on assessment-related roles -such as being a member of the Exam Board or the Assessment Committee- a Senior Qualification in Assessment (SKE) is required. Assessors possess assessment skills and are able to form a well-reasoned judgement about how students demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes. They make decisions based on the ongoing dialogue with the student, as well as on feedback and evidence. Workplace supervisors are encouraged to view assessment as a shared process between the student, teacher, and degree programme. Key elements in this include feedback skills, acting with awareness, and recognising and valuing student development. Assessment expertise is not a final goal, but an ongoing process. Together, we continue to learn, align, and improve so that assessment continues to contribute to high-quality education. ===== 7 .Supporting documents===== *[[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FFontys%20kader%20Talentgericht%20Onderwijs%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|Fontys Kader Talentgericht Onderwijs]] *[[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/SitePages/Info-&-documenten.aspx|Fontys Kader Toetskwaliteit]] *[[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FBeoordelingsschalen%20Talentgericht%20Onderwijs%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|Beoordelingsschalen Talentgericht Onderwijs]] *[[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FFontys%20Fraudebeleid%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|Fontys Fraudebeleid]] *[[https://stichtingfontys.sharepoint.com/sites/066_01/Gedeelde%20documenten/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten%2FHandreiking%20bewijsmateriaal%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F066%5F01%2FGedeelde%20documenten|Fontys handreiking bewijsmateriaal]] l ===== 8 .Literature===== * Leren van toetsen (2025). Programmatisch toetsen. Geraadpleegd op 8 mei 2025, van https://lerenvantoetsen.nl/programmatisch-toetsen/ Van Berkel, H., Bax, A., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Van Schilt-Mol, T. (2023). Toetsen in het hoger onderwijs. Boom.. {{tag>Assessment Governance Education Manager_Development Manager_Operations}}