Search

Assessment regulations in higher education, which are important for assuring threshold academic standards, reflect institutional cultures and histories, and are shaped by pragmatic concerns about quality indicators such as retention and progression rates, as well as principles of equity. This paper articulates some of the tensions that confront higher education institutions in the development and revision of regulatory frameworks, and describes a survey of assessment regulations from a sample of UK higher education institutions for the first year of undergraduate study. The survey identifies key variations in regulatory policy and practice that challenge assumptions about comparability of academic standards between higher education institutions. These findings imply that student success and progression may not be a simple reflection of academic attainment, and raise questions about notions of equity. It is intended that this research will contribute to informed discussion in the sector about academic standards and the regulatory frameworks underpinning first-year assessment policy and practice, and thus potentially lead to more transparent and consistent practice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In spite of the rising tide of metrics in UK higher education, there has been scant attention paid to assessment loads, when evidence demonstrates that heavy demands lead to surface learning. Our study seeks to redress the situation by defining assessment loads and comparing them across research and teaching intensive universities. We clarify the concept of 'assessment load' in response to findings about high volumes of summative assessment on modular degrees. We define assessment load across whole undergraduate degrees, according to four measures: the volume of summative assessment; volume of formative assessment; proportion of examinations to coursework; number of different varieties of assessment. All four factors contribute to the weight of an assessment load, and influence students' approaches to learning. Our research compares programme assessment data from 73 programmes in 14 UK universities, across two institutional categories. Research-intensives have higher summative assessment loads and a greater proportion of examinations; teaching-intensives have higher varieties of assessment. Formative assessment does not differ significantly across both university groups. These findings pose particular challenges for students in different parts of the sector. Our study questions the wisdom that 'more' is always better, proposing that lighter assessment loads may make room for 'slow' and deep learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]