Institutional Principles for Assessment and Feedback in Taught Programmes

• How are assessment tasks designed? Is the year of the student considered in the design and choosing the forms of assessment?
• How are students made aware of the purpose of assessment and the rationale for using the chosen methods/practices of assessment and the provision of feedback?

Assessment and feedback practices should be designed imaginatively.

Students and staff should readily appreciate the rationale for using particular methods, such that they consider assessment and feedback as having inherent value, rather than being a burden. Assessment should be viewed by all as an essential part of the development of academic knowledge and understanding rather than as an end in itself. Assessment and feedback can provide learning benefits even in the absence of an associated summative mark or grade.

Assessment for learning should be designed as a developmental opportunity, with students being encouraged to seek support as part of the process rather than only receiving feedback once the process is complete.

Assessment and feedback methods will necessarily change over the course of a programme of study. The methods used should recognise the challenge of transition for undergraduate students who are likely to be familiar with a curriculum designed around regular, prescribed set-piece assessment in their secondary education, and who may lack the motivation and confidence to become more independent and self –motivated learners.

Assessment should always represent a meaningful challenge such that it is viewed as stimulating and rewarding rather than either superficial or unrealistic.

• Is the range of assessment methods appropriate to test the learning outcomes at the programme level?
• Is the volume and forms of assessment manageable within the resources available such that staff can set, mark and provide timely feedback on assessments?
• Is the workload balance for students with regard to their learning and assessment and the nominal overall input that is expected of them appropriate for each unit and across a programme?
• With the exception of dissertations and projects, is the range of assessment sufficient such that no one type of assessment has a disproportionate effect on a student’s outcome at the programme level?

Explicit consideration should be given when designing assessment and feedback processes to the timing and workload for both students and staff. The emphasis should be upon purposeful and appropriate assessment and feedback rather than assuming that more assessment is preferred to less.

For each programme, schools should map the assessment and feedback throughout the academic year to ensure an even and appropriate load across all units with sufficient time for students to engage with and act upon feedback. Particular attention should be paid on the load for student on jointly taught programmes.

Notwithstanding the principle that assessment should not be excessive, processes should be designed such that students are able to display a range of skills across their programme through assessment, consistent with the intended learning outcomes.

• In what ways are students able to engage with the assessment and feedback processes as part of a continuing dialogue?

Examples include providing students the opportunity to discuss their feedback for an assessment or unit with the subject tutor or the student’s academic personal tutor (or equivalent); requiring students to reflect on previous feedback when submitting subsequent assessment work; taking a “holistic” view of a student’s progress by discussing feedback across a programme as part of personal development planning.

• Is it clear to students that each assessment is for learning?
• Is it clear to students which assessments are designed to also assess learning outcomes?
• Is feedback currently provided for each assessment? Could it be?
• Does feedback cover transferable skills as well as content?
• How could students be encouraged to engage with the feedback to improve their future work?

While some assessments may be primarily for the purpose of awarding marks to students so as to ascertain attainment of learning, wherever possible, students should receive constructive feedback on their assessments that enables them to improve in the current unit and also in their programme as a whole.

• Does the assessment method reflect research and/or good practice?
• Has appropriate advice been sought on practice?
• Are key members of staff involved with curriculum design engaging with CPD on assessment and feedback?

All members of staff with responsibility for curriculum design and implementation, such as, but not restricted to, unit and programme directors and heads of learning and teaching, should ensure that they engage with opportunities to become aware of the latest research and practice. These opportunities might include, for example, the CREATE programme for new and experienced members of academic staff, continuing professional development programmes, informal educational excellence seminars to share good practice both inside the University of Bristol and with internal and external experts.

The process within schools and faculties for approval of changes to units and programmes should include an explicit consideration of whether the assessment and feedback processes reflect current research thinking and accepted good practice.

• Is there a mechanism (including reminders) to ensure the timely delivery of feedback?
• Is the actual provision of feedback systematically documented and reviewed?
• Is feedback constructive? Is it giving suggestions for improvement?
• Could a pro-forma be used to improve consistency of feedback across markers?
• How could feedback be delivered efficiently?
• Has there been consideration of the relative benefits of providing feedback at the individual level or through group feedback?
• How will feedback be given on performance in exams?

The University expects a turn-around time for feedback of three weeks. The learning impact of feedback is likely to be highest when the work is still in the student’s mind and the programme has not moved on significantly. Feedback should always be forward-looking and manageable so that it points the student to a few achievable ways of improving their understanding. Pro-forma feedback can help, for example, pointing out good aspects of the work and areas for improvement with suggestions of further reading and/or work.

Feedback should always be provided on assessment that is designed principally as a developmental opportunity.

Except the ‘final’ set of examinations in a programme, feedback should be provided to students on examinations in order to help them understand their awarded mark, for example, by the provision of an ‘exam report’ that highlighted the mark distribution and common strengths/weaknesses in performance in each question across a cohort.

For all assessment for which a mark or grade is awarded, students may be provided with information about their individual performance in a cohort. This should typically include individual and average marks for the separate elements, such as individual questions in examinations, as well as mark distributions and rankings.

• How are students made aware of the existence and purpose of marking criteria?
• Do students have access to the marking criteria for each assessment and the opportunity to discuss the criteria and understand they are used?
• What opportunities do students have to peer-assess work?

Students should be made aware of the marking criteria for each assessment. The role of the marking / assessment criteria as reflections of the intended learning outcomes should be emphasised. Some schools provide sessions where examples from previous cohorts’ work is discussed in relation to the marking criteria with explanations of why these pieces of work achieved the awarded marks.

Peer assessment of work can be very effective in enabling students to understand and apply criteria to the work of others so that they can learn to be reflective and objective about their own work. It is recognised that, although students may have a mistrust of peer assessment and feedback, such processes do provide an excellent way of engaging students with assessment criteria.

• How do assessment and feedback practices take into account the requirements of professional, statutory or regulatory bodies?
• Are the assessment and feedback practices specific to the discipline being studied? To what extent?

In designing and regularly reviewing assessment practices, discipline areas should consider the current framework set out in the relevant QAA Subject Benchmark statement and in the current standards for curricula and assessment systems published by relevant professional bodies. The 'methods of assessment' section of each programme specification should be regularly reviewed and updated as appropriate, and the assessment methods in each programme's current range of units mapped to ensure that the various learning outcomes are appropriately assessed at each level.

• How does each assessment align with the teaching and learning method employed in each unit and across a programme?
• How does each assessment (of learning) align with the intended learning outcomes for each unit and across a programme?
• Is the feedback given to students appropriate and relevant to the teaching content and learning outcomes both in a unit and across a programme?

A diverse range of teaching methodologies and approaches are available to deliver and to facilitate student learning and engagement. Effective teaching and learning strategies take this diversity into consideration by selecting methodologies that are appropriately aligned to the teaching and learning of specific intended learning outcome(s) or skill(s). It is important that the formative and summative assessments used to test the attainment of these learning outcomes or skills are also appropriately aligned with selected teaching and learning methodologies. For example, the attainment of ‘hands-on’ practical skills might be more effectively assessed by a practical examination instead of an examination consisting of written essays, particularly when essay composition was not integral to the teaching and learning strategy.

Similarly, the feedback which is provided should align with the content and methodology that was used to teach. For example, in mathematical units the feedback may take the form of advising students to undertake specific extra exercises whereas in essay-based subjects the feedback may encourage students to seek out specific references.

The assessment and feedback practices used should also reflect the experiences of the students. It should be recognised that new undergraduate students may find the transition to higher education difficult and will be used to particular assessment methods and feedback mechanisms. Allowance should be made for any transition and explicit support provided to allow students to adjust to new assessment and feedback methods. Assessment and feedback methods used in the first year of study may not therefore be appropriate for the final year of study and vice versa.

• Have you considered the QAA ‘Subject Benchmark Statements’ when formulating/reviewing intended learning outcomes and methods of assessment?
• Are you using the University’s common generic marking criteria or has your specific marking criteria been mapped onto the University criteria?
• Is the marking scale (0-100, 0-20 or A-E) best suited to the form of assessment?
• If your programme is regulated by professional accreditors can you demonstrate the attainment of competency standards and use of appropriate methodologies, for example standard setting?

The ‘Subject Benchmark Statements’ contained with Quality Code Part A of the QAA sets out expectations with regard to degree standards across a range of subject areas and disciplines. These guidelines provide consistency across the sector for internal quality assurance and should be considered when formulating intended learning outcomes. Assessment and marking criteria should be aligned to demonstrate that the intended learning outcomes linked to these subject-specific benchmarks have been attained. Reference should also be made to the University’s common generic marking criteria and scale. Assessments to demonstrate the attainment of competency standards will also be regulated by professional standards.

• Has consideration been given to designing assessment and feedback practices to be as inclusive as possible?
• How are your assessment and feedback practices explained to all students at the outset of the programme?
• Have you mapped assessments through the calendar year? If the spread is uneven what is your justification for this?
• How have you stated deadlines and penalties for late submissions? Are these in alignment with University recommendations?
• How do you take disclosed disabilities and extenuating circumstances into account?

Assessment and feedback practices should be explained and communicated to all students at the outset of the programme and included in programme/unit handbooks. Programme and unit workloads should be balanced across the calendar, and deadlines and penalties for late work should be clearly stated. Assessment practices should be fair with transparent marking criteria. Students who have disclosed disabilities covered under the Equality Act (2010) or have reported extenuating circumstances should be provided with reasonable adjustments and not placed at disadvantage.

Assessment and feedback processes should be designed wherever possible to take into account a diverse range of students, some of which might have disabilities or specific learning difficulties.

• How are instructions on assessments provided to students and can students understand them?
• How do you remind students of assessments and feedback practices through the academic year?
• Do you use appropriate discipline-specific terminology in your assessments?

Assessment questions and assignments must be worded in English and employ appropriate discipline-specific terminology but is otherwise unambiguous and stylistically straightforward. All necessary accompanying instructions (deadlines, word limits, submission routes, links to information about avoiding plagiarism, etc.) should be similarly straightforward and be printed or provided immediately adjacent to the task information.

Students should be informed in unit handbooks and Blackboard, and briefed in class time, about the nature of the assessment, the format of any examinations, and about how feedback will be made available. Information about assessments and feedback on assessments should refer specifically to the intended learning outcomes for the unit/programme and the relevant marking criteria.

• Are students aware of the academic requirements by which they are assessed? How do they access this information?
• Is it clear that where a unit has multiple assessments, individual assessments are designed to test specific unit learning outcomes?
• Are assessments and criteria introduced in lectures/seminars?

Where multiple assessments are used, it should be made clear which assessments are testing which learning outcomes. Some forms of assessment are likely to be better suited to testing different learning outcomes. The relevant marking criteria should be made available in the Blackboard and discussed in class before the assessment and as part of the feedback process.

• Are there opportunities for students to develop an understanding of best academic practice and the avoidance of plagiarism or collusion?
• Is such information provided in context throughout a programme and not simply at the outset as an introduction?
• Are all students made aware of and can access information on the penalties for plagiarism and academic misconduct, including the University’s procedures for considering such cases?

Within each programme, some teaching or tutorial time should periodically be dedicated to discussing best academic practice and the avoidance of plagiarism/collusion. This may include practical exercises or formative assignments designed to highlight good practice in retrieving and referencing information. Students should be referred to further central resources in unit and programme documentation.

• Has time been dedicated at the outset of a unit specifically to introduce the unit assessment and to outline expectations for submission and feedback?
• Has assessment information for each unit in a programme been made available to allow students to make informed decisions when selecting options, balancing styles of assessment and appropriately planning and managing their time?

So that students can plan their work sensibly, it is important that they are made aware of the format, weighting and times of assessments (and when they can expect feedback) in all their units. If the unit has a Blackboard site, this is an appropriate place for such information. Students should be made aware of which of the unit’s intended learning outcomes are being tested in each assessment.

• How are your submission, marking (including standard setting), moderation and feedback practices explained to members of staff involved in the assessment process?
• How are your submission, marking (including standard setting), moderation and feedback practices explained to all students at the outset of the programme?
• What is your process for ensuring consistency between different markers?
• How do you use moderation?
• How does the programme’s external examiner(s) review assessed work?

Details of submission deadlines and processes (such as whether to submit to an administrative office or tutor; whether to include a cover sheet) should be provided in a unit handbook or via Blackboard or similar route. Deadlines should be set so that they do not disadvantage certain students (such as important religious holidays).

• Is assessment submitted and marked anonymously in line with University policy?
• How do you explain to students the processes for external scrutiny of their work?
• Does the external examiner have access to exam papers and scripts (or equivalent)?
• Are students aware of the processes for the approval and release of marks?

The process by which assessments are marked, including the moderation or second marking and the role of external examiners and exam boards, should be explained to students either through a generic handbook for the school or faculty or in unit handbooks or Blackboard sites. The approval and release, including the meaning of marks that are considered ‘provisional’, should also be explained.

Assessments should be marked anonymously unless it is not practicable to do so, as described in the Taught Code.

• What opportunities are available for staff to improve their assessment and feedback literacy? How are these publicised and encouraged?
• Is there innovation within your assessment practice that could be applied elsewhere within the University? How could you share such practice?

Opportunities might include, for example, the CREATE programme for new and experienced members of staff, informal seminars at School or programme level, and discussion within regular meetings of teaching teams or as items in the Annual Programme Review. It can be helpful to compare feedback and discuss the process of preparing and delivering feedback, and exercises in which staff do this may form part of these opportunities. Sharing innovative practice might happen within Schools, or between Schools within a Faculty. The Faculty Quality Team may also provide a vehicle for sharing of innovation and experience.

• Is there a process in place for the review of assessment and feedback activities at the unit and/or programme level? Do these reviews take into consideration institutional reviews, such as Annual Programme Review and FQT, and periodic School Reviews?
• Are the principles and delivery of assessment and feedback reviewed in partnership with students through SSLCs and informed by surveys, such as NSS and YourBristolSurvey?
• Are the reports from external examiners considered when assessing whether marking ranges are deemed to be fair and appropriate?
• If changes have been made to assessment and feedback practices, have they been communicated to students at the outset of the unit/programme?
• Have professional or statutory bodies announced their intention to change degree or competency standards, and has this information been appropriately conveyed to students?
• Has consideration been given to the innovation and pedagogic development of assessment and feedback practices?

Teaching content and learning practices within a discipline and across the sector are not static and therefore should be subject to continuous review. Institutional reviews such as APR are a good place to include explicit consideration of assessment and feedback practices. However, it is important also that assessment and feedback is part of a unit review process and unit reviews should routinely consider this aspect of provision.

• Is there a consistency to assessment and feedback across disciplinary boundaries in areas such as timeliness, transparency and fairness, alignment with ILOs, availability of information in handbooks, communications with students?
• Are assessment workloads equitable across units and programmes such that staff and student workloads are balanced across the calendar period?

Whilst the form and nature of assessment and feedback might vary across disciplines, there should be an adherence to the basic principles underlying effective assessment and feedback as articulated for example in these principles and in the rules governing assessment and feedback contained with the Code of Practice and Regulations for Taught Programmes.

• Are the purpose and validity of assessment and feedback practices a primary focus within school-level review processes?
• Is there confidence that ILOs and the assessment and feedback practices that support their attainment meet internal guidelines and those set across the sector?
• Is there external validation that professional standards set by external statutory and regulatory organisations are being met by existing assessment and feedback practices? Are students aware of these?
• Is there a mechanism for obtaining feedback from external employers and stakeholders about ILOs and the assessment and feedback practices supporting their attainment?

A review of the purpose and validity of assessment and feedback practices should be a primary focus for institutional review processes, such as Annual Programme Review, or visits by Faculty Quality teams. These reviews should be informed by reference to national and international standards, as defined by the requirements of external regulatory and statutory bodies, learned and professional societies and other employer and stakeholder organisations, as well as the latest pedagogic research and practice.