Mind the gap: An analysis of how quality assurance processes influence programme assessment patterns

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between the lack of visible attention to formative assessment in degree specifications and its marginalization in practice. Degree specification documents form part of the quality apparatus emphasizing the accountability and certification duties of assessment. Ironically, a framework designed to assure quality may work to the exclusion of a pedagogic duty to students. This study draws on interview and documentary evidence from 14 programmes at a single UK university, supported by data from a national research project. The authors found that institutional quality frameworks focused programme leaders' attention on summative assessment, usually atomized to the modular unit. The invisibility of formative assessment in documentation reinforced the tendency of modular programmes to have high summative demands, with optional, fragmented and infrequent formative assessment. Heavy workloads, modularity and pedagogic uncertainties compounded the problem. The article concludes with reflections about facilitating a more pervasive culture of formative assessment to improve student learning.

Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics

“…The third factor can be said to embed a more evidence-based approach to quality, namely through the assessment and validation of higher education processes and end results -at the level of teaching and learning, research or relations with society -and, specifically, of learning outcomes (Jessop, McNab, and Gubby 2012;Kohoutek 2014;Stensaker 2014). The idea is that the academic standards defined for such processes and end results should be used as new standards for the quality assurance schemes, in line with an idea of quality as consistency (Green 1994;Harvey and Green 1993).…”

The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning

“…These documents capture the main features of the planned curriculum, for example, the number and types of summative assessment, and the balance of examinations and coursework. definitive documents are more opaque about formative assessment tasks, as many of these are discretionary, both for lecturers and students (Jessop, McNab, and Gubby 2012). Conversations with the programme leader give a clearer picture of formative assessment loads.…”

“…It is not unusual for programmes to be assembled module-by-module according to the content being covered, without an overarching eye on the entire assessment pattern. Module leaders may design assessment tasks independently from each other without any necessary connection to the wider programme (Jessop, McNab, and Gubby 2012).…”

“…students focus more attention on what counts towards their degree when submission deadlines collide (Jessop, El Hakim, and Gibbs 2014). A second and less well-explored reason is the difficulty academics face in designing compelling formative tasks which engender enthusiasm among students, in a context of grade-orientation, and when students are pressurised by high volumes of summative assessment (Jessop, McNab, and Gubby 2012). A third reason is that academics are reluctant to reduce summative assessments in a climate of appeals and complaints, particularly when assessing students from a wider range of backgrounds and abilities than ever before.…”

Teaching global software engineering: experiences and lessons learned

“…This concern has motivated the redesign of undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses, with a stronger emphasis on the needs of employers [2]. In addition, there have been a few studies on improving teachers' learning process so that a quality curriculum can be designed [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Moreover, there has been a trend towards distinguishing between teaching small and large classes [10], the use of new technology [11,12] and designing courses required by the software industry, such as global software engineering [13,14].…”