assessment methods

As part of your curriculum design process you should consider the design of the assessment. The assessment type or method you choose will very much depend on a number of factors, including the learning outcome(s) to be assessed, the number of students and, in some cases, the professional body requirements. However, as part of the annual review process, it is important that you review the diet of assessments across the course and consider these in the light of student and external examiner feedback.

University of Reading produced an A-Z of assessment methods - https://www.reading.ac.uk/engageinassessment/different-ways-to-assess/eia-different-assessment-methods.aspx.
The table can be accessed here: University of Reading A-Z of assessment methods.

Group assessments can seem like more effort than they are worth, but if you get them right they can be one of the best learning experiences a student has. Group assessments need to be well designed and purposeful (and relevant to the learning outcomes of the module). They are particularly suited to modules where you might be trying to assess students' collaboration skills or team working skills. What is particularly useful in group assessment is to enable individuals to be clearly assessed for their role and contribution. For example, you might ask each student to keep a personal blog or reflective portfolio, or you could use minutes of meetings as evidence of contribution. Very often it is advisable to include a robust peer assessment process as part of any group work activity. Here are some further resources to help you think about group work assessment.

HEA report on group work

Group work assessment

A synoptic assessment combines two or more modules of study into a one assessment. 

This method can combine assessments between modules and across subjects. It expects students to transfer knowledge and skills and helps them see how issues and themes connect. The QAA Code of Practice specifically defines it as:

‘Assessment through a task that requires students to draw on different elements of their learning and show their accumulated knowledge and breadth and depth of understanding, as well as the ability to integrate and apply their learning’ (QAA, 2016)

Peer assessment can be used as part of group work activity (see above) or in smaller groupings of students. However, peer assessment should be robust and clearly moderated and overseen by the module tutor. Where peer assessment can be particularly useful is in formative assessment activities. For example, students could be split into pairs or small groups to provide peer reviews of each other’s essays (with guidance provided from the tutor) or in presentations and vivas where students contribute to the feedback of the assessment alongside the tutor.

Online assessment is the use of digital tools and services to allow students to submit their formative or summative assessments on or off campus for the purpose of marking, moderation and feedback. A variety of technologies are available which are able to accommodate a variety of assessment types, including ones not easily manageable without an online solution.

You can find out more about the supported tools and feedback methods, these tools listed are compatible with the University’s data retention and security policies. If you are thinking of using an assessment tool that is not shown on the document, please contact Digital Learning Service to discuss your ideas.

Some advantages of online assessment can include: 

• Immediate feedback, tailored to help students improve their knowledge and performance 
• Access for students in different geographical locations and at different times 
• Sophisticated reporting, allowing staff to refine the exercise or identify areas in which more instruction is needed 
• Ability to allow students to undertake online tests many times to assess and re-assess their knowledge 
• Efficiency for staff in providing some elements of feedback through well designed rubrics and automatic feedback statements 
• Students are able to access feedback remotely and in a consistent manner  
• The assessment and feedback can be revisited by both the staff and students whenever needed

A number of tools and systems are provided by the University that are designed to support assessment and feedback activities. If you need any advice or guidance in using the tools for assessment and feedback please contact Digital Learning. 

• MyBeckett Assignment (for the submission of documents for grading and feedback)
• MyBeckett Quiz tool (automated feedback can be included as part of quiz design)
• MyBeckett Discussion tool
• PebblePad – e-portfolio system which allows students to upload a range of files and formats for feedback from the tutor (particularly useful for students on placement
• Turnitin (for the submission of documents for grading & feedback, particularly where there is a requirement to check for academic integrity)

Jisc guide on digital assessment in higher education https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/digital-assessment-in-higher-education

This approach can help reduce the side effects of feeling that students are working to a tightly “modularised” course where both students and staff might feel there is too much “silo” thinking (Gibbs, 2006). Offering more opportunities for synoptic assessment can help students to make real links and connections between modules, recognise the relevance of their module content,  improve their synthesis and application skills (Southall and Wason, 2016), increase their engagement (Gorra et al, 2008) and might also provide teachers with a more holistic, conceptual approach to delivery.  The importance of the process of learning as distinct from the outcome of learning is given more attention within this model. It also appears to encourage deep learning through its enhanced focus on vertical and horizontal integration of the topics being studied.

This method can combine assessments between modules and across subjects. It expects students to transfer knowledge and skills and helps them see how issues and themes connect. The QAA Code of Practice specifically defines it as:

‘Assessment through a task that requires students to draw on different elements of their learning and show their accumulated knowledge and breadth and depth of understanding, as well as the ability to integrate and apply their learning’ (QAA, 2016)

It can carefully be used to assess two (or more) modules at one level (either across one or two semesters). Synoptic assessment suits project work, which may take place over the academic year but care needs to be taken to make sure the project terms and aims can encompass the breadth of the learning outcomes that need to be assessed.

Synoptic assessment requires careful planning and coordination across module teams.

Synoptic assessment is much much more difficult when it is not built in as part of the course design phase and when colleagues across module teams don’t communicate well enough with each other. Retake arrangements must be specified at the design stage and carefully mapped against learning outcomes

• Gibbs, G. (2006) Why assessment is changing. In C. Bryan and K. Clegg (Eds.) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.
• Gorra, A., Sheridan-Ross, J. and Kyaw, P. (2008) Synoptic learning and assessment: case studies and experiences. Ninth Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. 26-28 August 2008, Liverpool Hope University.
• Morris, E. (2016) A synthesis of synoptic assessment. Trent Institute for Learning and Teaching (TILT) Symposium: Exploring synoptic assessment (13 December 2016, Nottingham Trent University) 
• Patrick, H. (2005). Synoptic assessment: Report for QCA. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
• QAA (2016) Glossary. Available from: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaas/about-us/qaa-glossary.pdf?sfvrsn=a94bfc81_4
• Southall, Jane and Wason, Hilary (2016) Evaluating the use of synoptic assessment to engage and develop lower level Higher Education students within a Further Education setting. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 10 (1). pp. 192-202.