Contents
- Nina Brooke – Academic Developer, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
- Michael Kilmister – Academic Developer, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
- Sian Lindsay – Programme Development Partner, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
- Tony Churchill – Programme Design Partner, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
- Daniel Barker – Curriculum and Development Lead for Learning Design and Enhancement – University of Bath
Nina Brooke – Academic Developer, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
Michael Kilmister – Academic Developer, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
Sian Lindsay – Programme Development Partner, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
Tony Churchill – Programme Design Partner, Academic Development and Enhancement , University of Reading
Daniel Barker – Curriculum and Development Lead for Learning Design and Enhancement – University of Bath
The paper discusses how assessment strategy, design and implementation practices were re-imagined in response to new challenges including growing enrolment of widening participation students. The paper reflects on the conference sub themes from the perspective of academic development i.e. supporting staff to embed authentic, inclusive and sustainable assessment practices.
Central to curriculum change initiatives is a commitment to authentic, inclusive and sustainable assessment practices. In this context, this session explores the multifaceted role played by academic developers (AD) at the University of Reading, a research-intensive university, to catalyse changes to assessment practice as part of an institution-wide project to enhance course design and delivery. AD leveraged collaborative, appreciative and evidence-informed approaches to:
- Establish Assessment Principles: AD were instrumental in defining assessment principles that reflected the diverse needs and aspirations of the university community. These principles were informed by literature on programmatic assessment (e.g. Jessop and Tomas, 2017; Tomas and Jesop, 2019), reducing ‘overassessment’ (e.g. Harland et al. 2015; O’Neil, 2019) and authentic assessment (e.g. Sambell, McDowell and Montgomery, 2012), as well as work with student partners and staff through listening exercises.
- Translate Principles into Practice: AD developed a structured and iterative learning design process to support colleagues in translating these principles into practice. This process fore fronted a holistic programmatic perspective on assessment design prior to any module-level design decisions. Online guidance, support for School leads and workshops (e.g. ABC Learning Design) were tailored to the specific requirements of faculty facilitated engagement across different disciplines.
- Assess Adoption of Principles: AD developed a rubric-based assessment framework to evaluate the integration of principles into practice at both programme and module level. This systematic approach enabled the evaluation of more than 300 programmes, sampling 10-30% of the modules within each programme between April and July 2023. The outputs of this evaluation informed programme and module approval decisions and the provision of bespoke ‘feedforward’ advice to ensure ongoing enhancement.
In this session, we will collaboratively draw on reflections to share our journey, showcasing the resources developed and the insights gained in leading change in assessment practices at scale.
References
Harland, T., McLean, A., Wass, R., Miller, E. and Nui Sim, K. (2015) ‘An assessment arms race and its fallout: High-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), pp. 528-541. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.931927
Jessop, T. and Tomas, C. (2017) ‘The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), pp. 990-999. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1217501
O’Neil, G. (2019) ‘Why don’t we want to reduce assessment?’ All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), pp. 1-7. Available at: https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/415
Sambell, K., McDowell, L. and Montgomery, C. (2012) Assessment for learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
Tomas, C. and Jessop, T. (2019) ‘Struggling and juggling: a comparison of student assessment loads across research and teaching-intensive universities’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), pp. 1- 10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463355
