Student evidence review

AI-Assisted Student Assessment Marking.

After pre-validation and unit setup, review completed student evidence against unit requirements with structured findings while qualified assessors retain responsibility for final decisions.

Review evidence · Keep assessor control

AI-Assisted Student Assessment Marking Report

Typically $9–$19 per submission

Plagiarism checking included.

Separate activation fee applies. View pricing and conditions.

Build a clearer picture of each student's evidence against unit requirements. Student Assessment Marking Reports give assessors structured findings, helping teams review evidence consistently and focus on incomplete coverage and follow-up points before final decisions are made.

Your RTO's assessor pack sets the marking criteria. Our AI uses the criteria, benchmarks and assessor guidance you provide to review student evidence; it does not invent a separate set of marking criteria. Your qualified assessor reviews the findings and remains responsible for the final assessment decision.

See how student assessment marking supports Standard 1.4.

  • Upload completed student assessments in DOCX or PDF.
  • Support consistent, evidence-based review against unit requirements.
  • Highlight incomplete coverage and areas for assessor follow-up.
  • Support moderation conversations with a clearer evidence trail.

Getting submission-ready

  1. Review your report and materials — Address required findings, keep both packs aligned and complete the latest unit setup with onboarding support.
  2. Purchase capability — Confirm the activation price and any separate advisory scope, then purchase marking capability for an eligible unit.
  3. Confirm readiness — Check that setup is complete, capability is active, the unit is enabled and current submission pricing is configured before uploading work.
  4. Submit student assessments — Upload completed work for marking reports and assessor review. Student submissions are charged separately.

Receiving a report, purchasing marking capability and being ready for submissions are separate milestones. A report or capability purchase alone does not confirm readiness. Qualified assessors retain responsibility for final assessment decisions.

Sign up Discuss onboarding

After the marking report

Review feedback and follow up

Use the report and submitted evidence to review the student's outcome, outstanding work and any assessor attention required.

  • Review the report and prepare student-safe feedback, removing assessor-only material before sharing.
  • For an eligible unfinalised Not Yet Competent assessment, submit the student's corrections against the existing attempt and review the new report. Previously satisfactory decisions remain unchanged.
  • Resolve assessor-owned verification concerns through your RTO's procedures rather than asking the student to supply assessor findings.

For assessment-pack findings identified during pre-validation, use the rectification register. It is separate from student assessment follow-up.

Supporting capability · Video evidence and practical observation

Go beyond written answers

Bring recorded practical demonstrations, role-plays and presentations into the assessment workflow. Where enabled and permitted, upload recordings linked to the relevant task so AI-assisted observations can help assessors review practical evidence alongside the student's written work.

Examples of practical assessments

  • BSBXCM301

    Engage in workplace communication

    Example activityConversations and presentations

  • BSBXTW301

    Work in a team

    Example activityTeam activities and discussions

  • BSBLDR411

    Demonstrate leadership in the workplace

    Example activityMeetings or coaching activities

  • CHCCOM005

    Communicate and work in health or community services

    Example activityCommunication role-plays

  • SITXFSA005

    Use hygienic practices for food safety

    Example activityPractical demonstrations

These examples are illustrative. Suitable evidence and assessment conditions depend on the unit and your RTO's assessment materials. This supports recorded evidence, not live observation; recordings and AI observations alone do not establish satisfactory performance. Qualified assessors verify the evidence and remain responsible for final assessment decisions.

Discuss video evidence

Supporting capability · Paper and digital

Handwritten Assessments

Bring paper-based submissions into the same review workflow as digital assessments. This supports RTOs delivering practical, classroom, workshop, or regional training where handwritten evidence remains part of the learner journey.

  • Bring paper and digital learner evidence into one review process.
  • Reduce fragmentation across mixed delivery models.
  • Keep assessment records easier to manage and review.
Discuss Handwritten Assessments

Supporting capability · Integrity indicators

AI & Plagiarism Detection

Surface relevant integrity indicators so assessors can make informed, evidence-based follow-up decisions. The report brings together potential plagiarism, AI-generated content, generative logs, version control, and feedback quality for closer review where needed.

Why authenticity matters under Standard 1.4

The 2025 Outcome Standards require assessment to meet the rules of evidence, including authenticity: assessors must be assured that the evidence presented is the student's own work. Undisclosed copying or inappropriate AI-generated content can make it harder to determine whether the student has demonstrated the required skills and knowledge. Integrity indicators can help identify submissions that may need further review.

Standard 1.4 requires authentic evidence, not a particular AI or plagiarism detection tool. Indicators are not proof of misconduct, and AI use is not automatically prohibited. A qualified assessor should consider the assessment conditions and your RTO's policies, then follow up fairly—for example, by discussing the work with the student or seeking further evidence—before making a decision.

Learn more about Standard 1.4. Read ASQA's Assessment Practice Guide.

  • Move beyond a single similarity score when reviewing authenticity.
  • Provide a clearer basis for fair assessor follow-up conversations.
  • Support transparent internal integrity review processes.
Discuss AI & Plagiarism Detection

Extend your assessment workflow.

Auto-Marking

Help review written and practical submissions against unit marking criteria, providing structured feedback for assessor consideration.

Moodle Integration

Connect Moodle with your assessment workflow to help streamline submission review and assessor follow-up.

Consistent Review

Apply defined criteria with assessor oversight to support fair, transparent outcomes across cohorts.

Start with Pre-Validation, or after assessments are finalised explore the next stage: Post-Validation.