Assessment

Written in jargon-free language that can be understood by all stakeholders and consistently interpreted by them.

By ‘consistent interpretation’, we mean that different educators, students, and potential employers understand how each competence has been evidenced within the curriculum and how it can be applied in relevant and valuable contexts after graduation.

There must be some form of activity or output that allows students to evidence their level of competence in a way that is quantifiable.

By this we mean, there must be a way of measuring the level of achievement or extent to which that competence has been evidenced; e.g. as a percentage grade or performance level.

Can be aligned with the four domains of relevance to student futures: academic, life-long personal, professional, and societal.

• Academic: relevant to future of the course or student interest in the subject.
• Life-long personal: relevant to the future life-trajectory, how the student sees themselves or their place in the world and enabling a growth mindset.
• Professional: relevant to being employable within specific professions and/or graduate roles across multiple sectors, and flourishing within uncertain futures
• Societal: relevant to addressing complex local, national, and international challenges, and facilitating ethical global citizenship.

Recognised by key stakeholders (but particularly by students and employers) as being necessary for the personal and professional future of graduates of the degree.

To clarify the difference between Relevant and Valuable:

• The student decides the relevance because they own their future.
• The discipline, profession, and sector decide the value, because they are commonly best placed to define what is necessary for success in the student’s chosen future.

For example, a science student may wish to pursue a career in ‘science education’ (a common and reasonable future for many science graduates). Therefore, the student should be able to develop competencies that are relevant to this future. However, stakeholders within the science education sector best understand which competencies are valuable for graduates aspiring to that career. It is important to note that not all students on the same course aspire to the same future.

The approach is constructively aligned with program outcomes that are valuable to students’ futures. It requires students to demonstrate competencies in authentic contexts that are relevant to their future careers or aspirations. Additionally, it promotes an appropriate level of student-led ownership, ensuring that neither students nor staff feel overwhelmed.

• The final year assessment strategy is decided before the rest of the taught curriculum, which then determines what, when, and how students learn at all stages of the course.
• The curriculum directly and explicitly guides development of the programme competencies required to successfully complete the assignment(s). The best way to achieve this is for programme teams to work with the rest of the institution to create a holistic learning environment that supports this outcome (e.g. skills teams, student support, etc.).
• “Earlier years of the programme will prepare students effectively for their final assessment” (https://www.hull.ac.uk/special/inclusive-education), with a support structure that encourages learner autonomy.
• Sufficiently challenging as to develop learners’ ability to evidence competence, yet not overwhelm their sense of self-efficacy.

• Aims to minimise educational inequalities and awarding gaps, not retain or reinforce them. Adapted from (https://www.hull.ac.uk/special/inclusive-education).Asks staff and students to do things they can feasibly do. Particularly in the contexts of:
• Evidencing newly acquired knowledge and skills.
• Designing out the need for reasonable adjustments wherever possible
• Fair and feasible workloads associated with the completion (students) and marking (staff) of assessment.

Assignment Briefings should aim to clearly explain assignment expectations and value, and encourage student autonomy (not dissuade it).

Programme teams work collaboratively to create a consistent assessment briefing process that consists of an appropriate mixture of documentation and meaningful opportunities for discussion.

Marking criteria act as the bridge between assessment briefing, student production, and feedback. In order to do this, they should aim to clearly grade student competence, and be supported by a grading process that is appropriately explicit, reliable and efficient.

Programme teams work collaboratively to create a coherent set of marking criteria and grading processes for their assignments. Criteria should be available to students before they start any work. The process used to ensure that grading is transparent, consistent, and reliable should be shared with students when they receive their grades