# data[].attributes.body
I initially provided students with paper copies of the first page of the brief without the learning outcomes included, and also a copy of the assessment planning table above. Using the guidance on the brief as a starting point, I then facilitated a discussion about what students thought would be expected in each section of the report, based upon their existing knowledge and understanding, gained from using research reports throughout their studies so far, with students making notes on the table template provided. Following this, the learning outcomes were discussed, with students encouraged to ‘tick’ the relevant column, demonstrating that a preoccupation with the learning outcomes was not necessary; completing the assessment in line with guidance would mean they were automatically met.

# data[].attributes.body
As someone relatively new to CU Group (I'm based at CU Scarborough), I have mixed feelings about the assessment briefs.  I have delivered modules with vague assessment tasks that provide students with almost too much freedom, resulting in significant misinterpretation and sometimes even the creation of a new question entirely - often one they would prefer to answer!  Conversely, I have also worked with assessment briefs that are prescriptive to the point where students are unable to be creative with their responses or 'think outside the box', which, in my opinion, limits their academic freedom and development.

# data[].attributes.body
Having completed my undergraduate as a distance learning student, my experience of assessment was quite different to those who studied via a conventional route.  During my degree, I only had two exams and everything else was a written assignment.  Reflecting back on this, I feel I graduated with a significant skills gap in terms of group work and oral assessments (presentations, debates etc.).

Assessment literacy was not a term I encountered during my undergraduate studies.  However, I think the principles of assessment literacy were encouraged (e.g. in assignment feedback) but practical support to develop in this area was not something I experienced.

# data[].attributes.headline
3.3 Current practice and assessment literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
3.3 Current practice and assessment literacy

# data[].attributes.body
When approaching a new assessment, I place students in pairs/groups to discuss, analyse and interpret the assessment brief.  I then facilitate a feedback session to share thoughts/ideas and 'decode' the brief as a group.  This has proven useful in the development of assessment literacy skills - challenging and being challenged by fellow students in a safe and supportive environment fosters creative and novel approaches to assessment tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflecting on the model put forward by Price et al. (2012) has been very helpful.  My current practice definitely aligns with quadrant 2, with elements of the social constructivist approach used with some groups of learners.  The main barrier to transitioning to quadrant 4 is that the modules I deliver are incredibly short; at only six weeks, with an assessment due in week three and a second assessment due in week six, students almost 'demand' an explicit approach due to these time constraints. Student feedback on the assessment experience has a consistent theme - the turnaround time is too short at only three weeks and so the opportunity to immerse themselves in the wider learning experience is persistently overshadowed by looming deadlines.

# data[].attributes.body
For me, introducing the assessment task should happen as soon as possible, particularly as all modules ran at CU Scarborough are only six weeks in length, with one assessment due at the end of week three and a second due at the end of week six.  In the first two modules I delivered, I presented an overview of the week to students on day one, with assessment discussions etc. scheduled for the end of that first week.  This was not well received as students felt losing almost a third of their preparation time for the first assessment was "unfair".  I think the mode of delivery for CU Group students means that assessments need to be discussed on day one/two, even though this can be challenging and raise more questions than it answers if students have no prior knowledge or understanding of the focus/topic of the assignment.

# data[].attributes.body
The first short course was really useful in encouraging me to reflect on my practice.  In particular, there was lots of discussion amongst the group on the role, value and ethics of providing students with example or model answers. This is not something I normally do, but I think there may be real value in providing examples of anonymised previous assignments and tasking students with grading them.  I think this approach would facilitate conversations around how grade boundaries are determined for each marking criteria, allowing students to understand where their performance currently 'fits' and how this could be improved.

# data[].attributes.body
Please see section 1.3 for the initial assessment planning task used with students at the beginning of the module.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is important that the following factors are considered during the assessment design process:
1. Appropriately skilled and knowledgeable staff (i.e. subject specialists with teaching experience).
2. Protected time to plan and write assessment briefs to ensure the process is not ‘rushed’.
3. Alignment with module and course learning outcomes (not all in every assignment!).
4. Varied assessment methods across each year of the course to ensure skills development for students.
5. Moderation of the brief by a senior/experienced colleague, perhaps from an unrelated subject area.

# data[].attributes.body
A course-based approach to assessment is something I believe to be beneficial for academics and students alike.  For those designing the course, it encourages the embedding of assessment into module planning and creation, and for those undertaking the course, it provides consistency and authenticity, whilst encouraging students to acknowledge how individual modules link/contribute to overall programme/course learning outcomes.

The factors put forward by Bloxham and Boyd (2007) are present in the course I deliver.  Methods of assessment across each year of the degree are intentionally varied to ensure students gain experience of oral (e.g. poster presentations, debates) and written approaches (e.g. essays, reports, case studies), whilst developing additional skills such as public speaking, digital literacy and research capabilities.  Collectively, these experiences allow students to continually improve their knowledge and skills, in turn becoming ‘graduate ready’.

Naturally, the complexity and demands of the assessment tasks steadily increase throughout the course, with requirements reflecting the expected progression made by students during the previous year.  Almost all modules (four in each year) contain two assessments.  There is a concerted effort that the first assessment will prepare students for the second, often with both assessment tasks making this relationship explicit.

# data[].attributes.body
Having created an assessment map for year three of the BA (Hons) Public Health and Community Studies degree, it was interesting to see a visual representation of the concerns held by tutors and students alike regarding the intensity of assessment deadlines.  All eight assessments across the year are ‘high stake’, the first due in week three and the second due in week six, for all four six-week modules.  Given the teaching and learning delivery model adopted by CU Group, it is not possible to make significant changes to this, which can be frustrating at times.  Students adjust to these short timescales relatively well, but it can be difficult to engage students in session that do not relate directly to their assignments as focus is dominated by assessment deadlines.

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment weighting for three of the four modules is 40% for the first assessment and 60% for the second assessment - the research project module is 20% and 80%.  This distribution creates a significant amount of pressure for students, with both assessments being 'high stakes'. Given the opportunity, I would restructure all modules to be similar to the research project module in terms of weighting. Although this change would still mean both assessments were 'high stakes' in terms of the direct consequences of being graded, the pressure felt due to 40% of the module being assessed after only three weeks, would likely be reduced.

# data[].attributes.headline
4.5 Rationales underpinning assessment methods

# data[].attributes.subject
4.5 Rationales underpinning assessment methods

# data[].attributes.body
The assessment methods for all modules on the BA (Hons) Public Health and Community Studies degree are determined by the module information descriptor (MID).  For example, the MID for 328HSC Research Project states: “Assignment 1 (20%) Dissertation outline (1500 words)” and “Assignment 2 (80%) Literature based dissertation (5000 words)”.  Although for some modules these stipulations are a little restrictive, for this module there is reasonable freedom to design ‘the specifics’ of how students should approach, structure and present the assignments.  My approach to this was definitely guided by disciplinary norms (i.e. standard practice/conventions for conducting extended literature reviews), with my rationale informed by my own experiences of conducting research and anticipating where students may encounter challenges and attempting to minimise where these may arise through clear assessment guidance.

Conversations with students regarding the varied assessment methods encountered during the degree programme are something I regularly encourage, particularly in terms of how the skills and knowledge developed whilst completing assessment enhances employability.  I endeavour to give examples of how the assessment tasks relate directly to likely duties for students’ intended career.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a recording of an online talk given by Helen Aveyard in October 2020, hosted by McGraw Hill / Open University Press.

This webinar provided interesting insights, complete with 'tips and tricks' on how to effectively supervise students completing undergraduate literature review studies.  This is particularly relevant to my own practice as I am the module lead for the year three research project on the Public Health and Community Studies degree at CU Scarborough.

It was encouraging to hear from Aveyard that a number of the approaches I currently adopt when supervising such projects are believed to be examples of 'best practice' - for example, focusing on small-scale projects that are realistic and pragmatic (particularly relevant given the six-week timescale for the module), and advising students to include on empirical primary evidence in the literature review.

Going forward, I will use the information from this webinar regarding critical appraisal in undergraduate literature review studies to enhance my practice, and in turn, student experience of the module.  This is not an aspect of the literature review process that is currently undertaken due to the short amount of time available for the module.  However, advice from Aveyard suggests that this step is still possible and even a 'light touch' is important for students' critical thinking and evaluation skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supervising an Undergraduate Literature Review with Helen Aveyard

# data[].attributes.headline
Pass First Time: Inclusive assessment practices

# data[].attributes.subject
Pass First Time: Inclusive assessment practices

# data[].attributes.body
Recording from Coventry University Group Staff Conference 2021 (Thursday 24th June, 11.00-12.30).

I found this talk to be very interesting, and it certainly challenged some of my pre-existing ideas about what constitutes inclusive assessment practices.  The focus of the talk was on assessment literacy through the lens of inclusivity.  A key takeaway from this was that it is important not to 'dumb down' the information relayed to students when discussing assessments, but instead be present and aware of our practice and engage with students in a sustained and meaningful way.  I found it particularly interesting that emphasis was placed upon the development of wider, personal skills for students, rather than simply academic ability.  Taking the stance of "it's not just about this one assessment" is an effective way of ensuring a course-wide view of assessment, whilst acknowledging that well-executed assessment and feedback processes are essential for student development, both academically and in terms of personal growth and ultimately employability. These factors have certainly provided 'food for thought' in terms of my own practice and I have actively begun to encompass these elements into my planning and teaching delivery.

# data[].attributes.body
I encourage students to collate assessment feedback in a ‘feedback diary’ to enable them to identify patterns in suggested areas for development.  Students report finding this a useful way to identify where support is required, and I frequently provide advice on how to address these areas for development.  In module 328HSC Research Project, students are explicitly advised to use the feedback from the first assessment to inform/enhance their work for the second assessment.  This approach proves particularly useful given the structure of the module; assessment one forms the first two chapters of assessment two.

# data[].attributes.body
The assessment briefs for the four year-three modules on the BA (Hons) Public Health and Community Studies degree have been inherited.  There are a number of issues related to the validity and fairness of the assessment tasks for some of the assessments.  These issues relate to unavoidable processes that I have previously discussed.  The module information descriptors state the general assessment method (e.g. 2,500 word report) along with the module learning outcomes that must be demonstrated through completion of the assessment task.  Students are often ‘over assessed’ with many of the module learning outcomes appearing on the brief for both assessments, despite each module only being six weeks in length.  This causes a further issue in that designing an assessment task within the confines of the stipulated assessment method, which also allows students to effectively demonstrate the required module learning outcomes, is very challenging.

# data[].attributes.body
Authentic assessment is important to me because I believe undergraduate education should prepare students for the ‘world of work’ beyond graduation.  This is particularly relevant in subject areas such as public health, where students are often already working in a related role, and chose to undertake degree study to progress within the workplace.  Students are also vocal about the fact that they believe assessment should relate directly to duties they would be expected to fulfil in a role within the wider (public) health and social care sector.

During module 326HSC Contemporary Welfare and Social Policy, students are required to learn a significant amount of new information regarding names and dates of landmark policy and legislation in UK history.  Students were open about the fact that this was difficult and at times confusing, but were unsure how to decide where to focus their efforts in terms of independent study outside of the classroom.  Upon hearing this, I decided that a formative task would be a useful way for students to assess their progress.  I designed a ‘pop quiz’ for the Monday session, the results of which allowed students to determine topic areas that required further reading.  The same quiz was then used during the Friday session of the same week (again, unannounced) to allow students to acknowledge their progress, and again highlight any areas where further work was required.  This proved a worthwhile approach and all students gave positive feedback about this method of understanding their knowledge strengths and limitations when learning new information.

# data[].attributes.body
Re: 328HSC Research Project. I was initially inclined to think that a research project (that must be presented as a structured review of existing literature) was not a particularly inclusive form of assessment, especially for students with dyslexia, visual impairment or some mental health/memory problems due to potential difficulties working with long documents (i.e. organising, processing and synthesising large amounts of information).  As a result, I developed assignment guidance that separated the project into distinct and manageable sections (‘chapters’ in a conventional research dissertation).  This allowed students to focus on one section at a time without feeling overwhelmed by the size of the project report required.  This decision was supported by research I read, suggesting that structured documents may provide a solution for students who experience challenges with reading/writing long documents.

# data[].attributes.body
A3 sheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessment design - A3 work-along activity

# data[].attributes.body
From the point of view of a tutor, I think all comments relating to academic skills, however brief or general, are a form of feedback.  Any advice or guidance that aims to improve a student’s academic practice constitutes feedback, but where the challenges lies is whether a student chooses to listen (rather than hear) and take on board such comments.

There appears to have been a paradigm shift regarding how feedback is defined.  Historically, feedback seems to have been viewed as information on the difference between where is student is currently and where they need to, or should, be.  In more recent times, it has been acknowledged that feedback is not only about highlighting this gap, but providing advice, guidance and upskilling activities to equip and empower students to minimise this disparity, namely through open dialogue and ongoing conversations.  For me, this latter view is most closely aligned to my own understanding of the nature and purpose of feedback, which has been cemented during my time with CU Scarborough in light of the priority given to the widening participation agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
I would very much like to say that my approach to feedback aligns with the new paradigm put forward by Carless (2013); these principles are very important to me and I firmly believe they improve students learning experience exponentially.  However, given the teaching delivery model adopted by CU Group, with only six-week modules and two summative assessments (due weeks three and six), upholding these principles is challenging.  The only ‘saving grace’ is the small learner groups at CU Scarborough, which allows for one-to-one conversations with all students in an attempt to encourage and ‘fast track’ the learning and empowerment process required to effectively use feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
The feedback levels put forward by Hattie and Timperley (2007) provided me with useful ‘food for thought’.  Upon reflection, it was encouraging to recognise that my feedback encompasses all three levels in relatively equal measure.  For example, in the assignment given in section 1.5, the feedback for ‘Critical analysis, evaluation and application of theory’, my feedback follows these three levels.

# data[].attributes.headline
5.4 Principles of good feedback practice

# data[].attributes.subject
5.4 Principles of good feedback practice

# data[].attributes.body
Reflecting on the seven principles of good feedback practice (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006), I can say with confidence that principles 1, 2, 3 and 7 are upheld in my feedback practices; these form the basis of the written feedback provided to all students for all assessment.  Where I think my feedback practice could be improved is in relation to principles 4, 5 and 6.  Students are not always willing to engage in conversation regarding these assessment performance, particularly if the mark is lower than they anticipated or wanted, and this can make open dialogue challenging as students sometimes feel judged, offended or inadequate.  This can then impact on self-belief and self-esteem (principle 5), which are significant barriers for students when it comes to improve academic performance; until these factors are addressed, open dialogue (principle 4) is challenging/limited.

# data[].attributes.body
Students are encouraged to create a ‘feedback journal’, where feedback from each assignment is added to this working document.  It is hoped that over time this will encourage students to recognise ‘patterns’ and begin to think about specific areas where development is required.

Encouraging and facilitating peer feedback can be a little more challenging; students are often unwilling to have their performance ‘judged’ by their fellow classmates and similarly student groups are often reluctant to pass comment on their peers/friends.  However, given the small class sizes indicative of CU Scarborough cohorts, I have learned over time that these close knit groups lend themselves to creating a safe and supportive space, something that is fundamental to achieving positive peer feedback experiences for all.

# data[].attributes.body
Completed using the assessment feedback presented in section 1.5.

I was relatively happy with the outcome of completing this reflective tool, and was encouraged to see that my feedback has a good balance of praise, critique and advice.  However, where I found the process enlightening was in regards to sections P4 (this can be difficult with anonymous marking and A3 (general points for future learning/assignments are normally under a section I title 'Action points'; this was not done as these assignments were research projects but I recognise this would have been beneficial).

# data[].attributes.body
I think all feedback is ‘worth the effort’, though it can be disheartening when it becomes clear students have not read/understood/used the information.  This is why I think an open and ongoing conversation/dialogue is important; this approach encourages students to learn from their feedback to improve their academic practice.  However, in addition to marking and providing feedback, ensuring all students receive this level of contact/communication can be difficult to balance with the other demands of the role.

# data[].attributes.body
Students’ reasons for (dis)engagement appear to be very similar to my own experiences as a learner in HE.  Ironically, the higher the mark, the more likely it is that written feedback will be read and acted upon, perhaps due to the encouragement/validation felt by receiving a ‘good’ grade.  Similarly, a lower mark is often interpreted as inaccurate and/or unfair; this consequently negatively impacts self-belief, self-confidence and self-esteem, and an inability to understand the value/worth of constructive criticism.

# data[].attributes.body
Of the ten approaches discussed in the toolkit, although most were interesting, one in particular stood out to me as realistic for incorporation into the unique teaching delivery model adopted by CU Group – the ‘Thumbs up, Thumbs down’ activity used at Murdoch University.  I found this to be an innovative approach to engaging students with marking criteria, and fostering classroom conversations about what constitutes ‘good and bad’ assignments.  I also think this activity would be a great way of enhancing students’ assessment literacy through discussions regarding what is expected from the assessment brief.

# data[].attributes.headline
5.11 Enhancing feedback using technology

# data[].attributes.subject
5.11 Enhancing feedback using technology

# data[].attributes.body
Audio and video feedback are not approaches that I have used.  Although the Turnitin system we use does allow for audio feedback, and I have some colleagues who regularly utilise this function, in my current role I have large cohorts so this may prove challenging due to the one-week turnaround time we have for marking.  It is possible that short, thirty-second or so individualised audio feedback could be provided for each student in addition to written feedback, but the likely reality of this would still be too time-consuming, and run the risk of students prioritising audio feedback over written feedback that would contain specific, tailored action points.

# data[].attributes.body
I try not to make judgements intuitively about student work, though at times this can be challenging.  Some of the factors I believe contribute to this are the previous performance of students, time constraints, and the influence of the quality of submissions by other students.  I have found the latter factor particularly influential, particularly when reading a ‘good’ assignment directly after a weaker one, the result of which is a potential for grade inflation.

# data[].attributes.body
Of the factors outlined by Orrell (2008), I feel that prior knowledge and expectations of students, along with the quality of other recently marked student papers, may play a role in my judgement and marking decisions.  From discussion with colleagues, it appears that this is a common concern, and it is important, and sometimes challenging, for tutors to overcome this bias.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Redesign of assessment criteria for 328HSC CW2