This summary is intended to provide an overview of opinions about the revised draft, focusing mainly on coinciding views from the various small groups at both York and London. Where relevant, it indicates where there was polarisation of opinions and therefore where the working group needs to decide how to find a balance between two positions. The summary only covers the general feedback received. Information about the specific feedback from participants in the round table meetings relating to individual precepts is available on request from Gill Clarke (g.clarke@qaa.ac.uk).
Style and language, and institutional use
The new style is broadly welcomed, especially the use of explanations while retaining some bullet points. This is thought to be more useful and practical than the style of the previous version. There is also appreciation of the way in which we have updated the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice) to embrace modular programmes and greater diversity in assessment practice. The revised Code of practice is thought to be a useful document for some types of staff development concerning student assessment. There is a general feeling that the Code of practice contains sound principles while allowing institutions flexibility in engaging with it. There is also support for encouraging an ‘assessment for learning’ approach and for the greater emphasis on the need for cross-institutional consistency in assessment practice.
However, it is thought important that the explanations and examples cannot be used as a checklist, either within institutions or by external reviewers, and one or two participants suggested that we were in danger of drifting away from Better Regulation Task Force/Higher Education Regulation Review Group advice and back to a ‘guidance’ approach. It was suggested that this could be addressed in the Introduction (ie by making it clear that the explanations and examples are no more than that) and by changing the emphasis to indicate the wide range of existing good practice. The point was also made that some professional, statutory and regulatory bodies have firm requirements about assessment, which institutions have to respond to in parallel with the precepts in the Code of practice.
The Foreword now being used for all revised sections of the Code of practice explains the difference in purpose between the precepts and explanations in paragraphs 5, 6 and 8, but we can reinforce this in a revised Introduction (see previous paragraph). We can also change some words in the explanations and examples, for example, by removing ‘should’ and ‘will’ from those sections and generally softening the language (some groups liked the following examples: 'it may in some cases be appropriate to…', and 'it may be/institutions may find it helpful to consider how…'). We also need to make it clear that the examples are there only to illustrate concepts, that they will not be appropriate to all assessment practice and that there are many other examples that could be used. Some of the existing examples might need to be omitted or revised.
It is recognised that the Code of practice is not normally used by academic staff, but that sections of it are used by institutions as a reference point when developing institutional policy and guidance. This ‘translation’ process normally involves input from academic staff and is therefore useful in disseminating good practice and issues at subject level. The Code of practice and other QAA publications are thought to be helpful for testing institutional practice, especially when new issues or practices develop. A converse point was also made: that where an institution embeds the precepts of a section of the Code of practice in its own policy/regulations/guidance, but staff are not familiar with the precepts this can be a problem when the institution is externally audited. One group said that it would be useful to have a discussion about how sections of the Code of practice are used across a range of institutions.
Auditor/reviewer training
Both groups wished to highlight the importance of using the above points in auditor/reviewer training, to emphasise an audit approach based on asking institutions about their experiences in working with the various sections of the Code of practice and discussing with them any perceived need for divergence from the precepts and how this had been addressed. Some colleagues wished to be reassured that there was no question of external auditors or reviewers thinking that they should be using the explanations accompanying the precepts to test institutional alignment with this section of the Code of practice.
Promoting good practice
It was suggested that the electronic final version of this section of the Code of practice should include links to examples of good practice and also examples of what to avoid in assessment. Some of the examples currently included in the Code of practice could be used in this way and there could also be links to Higher Education Academy examples, both generic and from the Subject Centres. This approach would enable us to update examples and keep up to date with current practice.
Student responsibilities
This was considered to be a topic that needed expanding in the revised Code of practice. Suggestions were offered about where we might do this (see Specific feedback below: Introduction and Precepts 5 and 13).
Research students
There were two schools of thought about our attempts to include guidance on the assessment of research students: one group thinks that we should confine this section of the Code of practice to assessment of students on taught programmes; another that it is more appropriate to make this an inclusive document and that to do so we need more about assessment of research students in the explanations, and more cross-referencing to the Assessment section of the Code of practice, Section 1: postgraduate research programmes. If we decide the Code of practice should remain inclusive, we could reinforce this point in the introduction.
The point was also made that the Code of practice does not discuss postgraduate students’ contribution to supporting learning, for example when acting as teaching assistants or demonstrators, and their related responsibilities in assessing other students. It was suggested that the draft should emphasise the need for all involved in assessment to be properly trained.
Concept of the evaluation of student achievement/failure
This draft is much more about the positive aspects of assessment and using assessment to support student learning. While this is a step forward, the point was made that, as it stands, the current draft does not emphasise enough the need to evaluate student achievement, or acknowledge that in some cases the outcome of assessment is the student’s failure to achieve intended learning outcomes. This has a particular relevance in the assessment of some professional/vocational qualifications, for example those that involve fitness to practise. One person said that we should also try to encompass the need to assess the added value to students of following and completing a programme of study, over and above the intended learning outcomes, and that we could make more of the concept of exceeding learning outcomes, which is only mentioned a couple of times in the current draft.
Volume of assessment
There was some positive feedback about references to the volume of assessment and raising awareness of issues around over-assessment, which is perceived to be a concern for students as well as staff. There is at present only a passing acknowledgement of the amount of staff and student time taken up with assessment (and for staff, with feedback to students). Most staff would like to give students more feedback than resources allow.
There is a view that over-assessment can be a feature of modular, semesterised programmes. Feedback from some students indicates that they think formative assessment leads to over-assessment. [Is this because it is not made clear to students that formative feedback is intended to help them improve their performance when being assessed for summative judgements?] Reference was made to the differences in practice in volume of assessment, between subjects and between further education and higher education, and potential difficulties for students transferring from further education to higher education.
Possible re-ordering of precepts
It was suggested that the precepts were not yet necessarily in the right order. One participant offered an alternative ordering, under the headings:
- Student learning and assessment (precepts 3, 9, 6, 7, 2, 5)
- Professional/external bodies (precept 12)
- Institutional procedures (precepts 1, 4, 15, 13, 8, 14, 11)
- Preparation and support (precept 10).
Others liked the existing order of precepts generally but suggested that 14 should come before 13 and that we should move 10 to the end.
Formative and summative assessment
Some comments indicate support for the perceived greater emphasis on formative assessment in the revised version of the Code of practice. Others say that it is still focused on summative, not formative assessment. There is also recognition that the variations between subjects in the ways in which assessment is conducted means it is difficult to provide focused explanations on these points. There is widespread recognition that resources will not stretch to providing the amount and quality of feedback that students would ideally like.
A further point made by one participant was that the terms ‘formative assessment’ and ‘summative assessment’ did not accurately represent our meaning: that it was the purpose of an assessment rather than the assessment itself that was formative or summative, or both. We are asked to give thought to the terms ‘contributory’ and ‘non-contributory’ when talking about the ways in which an assessment outcome might be used.
Joint or combined programmes
More than one group suggested that the Code of practice could contain more about joint or combined programmes of study, especially where they cross disciplines and possibly faculties. Issues here centre on different marking conventions potentially leading to different outcomes (eg different degree classes) for students showing similar levels of achievement; and operational concerns, such as bunching of assessment deadlines for students.
Use or omission of certain terms
There was a query from one group about the use of the word ‘publicise’ rather than ‘publish’ in a number of the precepts. This links with another comment, querying whether we had deliberately avoided certain concepts, including condonement, compensation, credit, borderline marks etc. We may need to try to explain the absence of some terms, and the positive use of others, in the introduction.
Programme review
One group suggested that there might be scope for making stronger links between assessment and programme review, since the two go hand in hand.
Cross-referencing
Several suggestions referred to the need for more cross-referencing in different precepts to other sections of the Code of practice, including Section 1: postgraduate research programmes, Section 2: collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), and Section 4: external examining, and the Guidelines on the accreditation of prior learning.
Top