# data[].attributes.body
Students are given optionality of the format and focus of an assignment within the parameters of a written output

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instructor: Dr Sam Van Elk

Email: sam.van_elk@kcl.ac.uk

Module: Government and Business (KBS+ module for students from other disciplines) level 4

Assessment activity: Students are given optionality of the format and focus of an assignment within the parameters of a written output.

Why did you introduce optionality for the assessment?

Interdisciplinarity: The nature of a KBSPLUS module is that it is taken by a range of people from other faculties. KBSPLUS offers modules for students wanting to integrate some business or management modules within their degree programme. This means that my students are from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, and a lot of people who are doing Study Abroad (Exchange Undergraduate). While the Government and Business module does not need to fit into a specific programme assessment pattern, it has to fit into or cater to a range of programmes from which our students come. Not only does this mean that it is difficult to assess all students in the same way, but they are making their own choices about what to focus on, and it made sense to provide optionality of assessment format for them.

Academic Writing: what is exciting about this module is that students come from a lot of different perspectives, but they also have lots of different sets of expectations about what assessment is, and what constitutes good academic writing. I was wary of attempting to teach to one particular style of writing; and saw that students were also concerned about having to fit into one particular mode which might not suit them or be appropriate for their home programme. I wanted to avoid fitting everyone into one mould and encourage students to instead make their own decisions about the best way to communicate their perspective in writing.

Content choice: many modules will allow students to choose their own topic to focus on for an assignment, so this is not new. But I provide different assignment types and foci that allow students to either focus on particular areas of interest that relate to their own experiences/future plans or to focus on more academic general content.

Why was the optionality set within the parameters of written work?

I did consider allowing students to produce different outputs/media such as digital artefact etc. This is what is commonly meant by optionality.

But, firstly, some of the research (e.g. Jopp & Cohen, 2022) pointed to some of the negative consequences of providing a level of optionality that required students to 'decode' the optionality structure before they could engage with module content. This is why I chose my tempered creativity approach and took optionality in my module to mean type of written format.

Secondly, I find writing a peculiarly useful medium through which to assess the ability to understand and analyse academic material.

How did you set it up?

The written assessment is weighted at 90% of the module. Each student chooses from a list of given questions with specific foci. There are

some 'typical/traditional' academic genre questions, for example asking students to evaluate theories (e.g. 'While New Public Governance was presented as a bold new way of running public services, in reality it preserved more of New Public Management than it rejected. Do you agree, and why?')

some scenario-based case studies relating to policy areas identifying solutions to problems (e.g. You have been asked to advise the government of a country of your choice on efforts to reduce youth violence. What model or models of public management would you recommend they use to coordinate the initiative, how and why?)

some questions that ask students to engage closely with the experience of people working in and receiving public services;

a response to a guest speaker from a government policy area who presents a case to the students for them to solve for that organisation using material from the course.

Ensuring parity: All assignments are designed to allow students to meet the learning outcomes, even if their format or focus is different. I have a marking rubric that helps to aid with potential disparities
but still allows freedom to reward people's strengths while making sure that they are achieving across the board. Certainly, there is a challenge comparing diverse students who have attempted different styles of question to foreground their differing sets of strengths. However, I do not think we avoid this challenge simply by asking them to address a single type of question - their strengths will still differ, but now we will only reward one set thereof. Accordingly, this module accepts and embraces diversity of means to achieve learning outcomes.

How do you give feedback?

Of course, all students receive some feedback at the end of the course on their summative submission , which we hope will feed forward to other modules as well. But we embed formative assessment and feedback opportunities throughout the course. We don't ask them to do full scale written exercises, but in class we do pieces of writing and pieces of essay planning to help build writing skills.

We do these within class as tutorial exercises, so students are continually working experientially rather than seeing formative assessment as only something to do outside of class. About half of our tutorials focus on case studies and the other half are involved in types of written work, so there are opportunities there both for feedback on that process. This feedback is both from me as the tutor but also I use peer-to-peer feedback where students bring in extracts of writing and discuss them. For instance, in one tutorial, we focus on writing introductions. In preparation, students write an introduction to an essay question, then share with others who share their reactions and feedback. After sharing the types of reactions we are having and developing general learning points, students rewrite their introductions and share for a second round of feedback.

What benefits did you see?

Talking about writing: As mentioned above, one of the main issues students face is in understanding the expected writing convention of a particular assessment, discipline or national educational system. I find that students frequently ask questions about whether they have to write the same way as in their home department (e.g. by following a particular structure, or using/not using subheadings). So, I have to be quite explicit at the start that all that matters in this writing exercise is answering the question and justifying that answer. I emphasise that there may be more and less effective ways of structuring a particular answer, but that this is for students to decide rather than being prescribed. I think the optionality helps force us to discuss these writing choices more explicitly as it is impossible to prescribe a standard boilerplate structure for an essay. Student comments have picked out that the 'essay advice in tutorials was really useful'.

Ownership and motivation: Students have to make choices about the type of assignment that they will perform best in, which will be more relent to their degree programme or what they want to learn most in the module. This facilitates self-directed learning as they take some ownership over their assessment.

Mitigating against improper generative AI use: the guest speaker scenario and some of the case studies are so specific that CHAT GPT etc would not be able to write them. This could provide me with an opportunity to discuss AI use where appropriate with students, but ensures that students are really doing their own work.

What challenges did you encounter and how did you address them?

Scalability: I need to consider whether parity of marking would be more difficult to achieve if the module was scaled up and there was a larger marking team. At the moment there are only approx. 60 students on the module. If numbers increase, I would make use of calibration for marking sense checks and to establish standards, and perhaps develop a tighter rubric that specified certain things I was looking for in the different assignments.

But as with students, I think this is also a potential benefit in that these discussions amongst staff are not always done on modules with more traditional assessments, where expectations of standards are still not guaranteed between markers! This kind of assessment almost forces us to be less tacit and more explicitly engage with some of these issues.

Risk taking: it is possible that students could be attracted to certain types of questions or not take risks, whether or not these are actually best indicators of their actual skills. So far I haven't noticed a strong differential in achievement between the less traditional and the academic submissions. This is something to continue to monitor. But, as mentioned above, most of the exercises we do in class are intended to simulate the different types of assignment. So this allows students to try out different things and get feedback to see where their strengths lie before attempting the summative work.

Logistics and timetabling: the guest speaker is scheduled through normal timetabling so it is not 'extracurricular' for inclusivity concerns. But chief executives are not as flexible as academics about complying with the times they are allocated by timetabling. So, that may be an obstacle. However, the guest speaker session will be recorded so even if students are not able to attend they can still choose this assignment type.

What advice would you give to colleagues who are thinking of trying this type of assessment?

It isn't as daunting to provide optionality as you might think! All I was doing was looking at my learning outcomes, looking at my students and providing a range of questions that oriented to the different skills to assess and different interests students had. As time went on, I became more aware of the bits of the course that really grabbed the students and could then frame assessment a little bit more through them.

I saw this module as a chance to experiment and see how adding optiopnality worked and so I started in a small way with one variant from that traditional academic mould and I've built up from there and that was a very comfortable way to do it because I could evaluate and refine. You can start with a small level of optionality and work form there without overwhelming yourself.

You have to be aware that some students might be daunted themselves by optionality and some are more risk averse than others, so to avoid all students going for the 'safe' option, try to build in opportunities for formative practice so everyone gets an opportunity to practice with a new form of writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student optionality within a written assessment format on an interdisciplinary module

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructor: Dr Sam Van Elk Email: sam.van_elk@kcl.ac.uk Module: Government and Business (KBS+ module for students from other disciplines) level 4 Assessment activity: Students are given optionality of the format and focus of an assignment within the parameters of a written output.

# data[].attributes.body
In the video case study Dr Jane Simmonds, Programme Lead for MSc/ PGDip/ PGCert Advanced Paediatric Physiotherapy and Paediatric Physiotherapy Studies within the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, explains the authentic approach taken on her clinical exercise and physical activity module. Students are given the option to pick their own topic areas that related to their own life and areas of interest. Potentially really useful for future employability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back in 2004 Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner defined authentic assessment as: " An assessment requiring students to use the same competencies, or combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that they need to apply in the criterion situation in professional life." Despite ongoing enthusiasm for the approach beyond Sally Brown and Kay Sambell's Covid-19 Assessment Collection good examples remain hard to find. The Digital Assessment Team would like to share an excellent case study of an authentic assessment approach taken on the UCL Clinical Exercise and Physical Activity Master's module. On this module students are asked to apply knowledge by creating an online case specific patient resource. The resource is created in Microsoft Sway and includes images, videos and text.

In the video and case study below Dr Jane Simmonds, Programme Lead for MSc/ PGDip/ PGCert Advanced Paediatric Physiotherapy and Paediatric Physiotherapy Studies within the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, explains the authentic approach taken on her clinical exercise and physical activity module.

What we did and why

Dr Jane Simmonds explains: The clinical exercise and physical activity module looks at global challenges including mental health and obesity. It used to be assessed using an exam but we felt that this did not give students the opportunity to fully apply their knowledge. The assessment was changed to allow students to create a bespoke educational resource for patients that is also linked to a case study that has originated in clinical practice. The resource is created by the students in MS Sway. Students must collate information and multimedia files and embed them within the Sway in an engaging manner. To support the resource the students also produce an essay which covers how they could potentially get people to engage with the resource they have created.

The assessment change was in response to a need to allow the students to apply their knowledge in a more demonstrable and concrete manner. We wanted to make sure the assessment was authentic and a practical application of what the students had learnt. The assessment changed three years ago but continues to be developed over time. This was quite a resource intensive assessment to set up but once created the idea can be reuse each year. It is by definition a 'non-disposable assessment' in that it provides impact or value outside of the traditional student-teacher dyad.

We are unaware of anyone else using Sway on their modules but would be keen to hear from anyone who is. The students really enjoy this assessment and have remarked that it is one of the most transformative modules they have taken. We hope to bring in new and topical conditions to the module to ensure the content is fresh.

Jane's top 5 tips for academics wanting to do something similar:

1. If you want to use Sway make sure you have a go yourself

2. Build in time in your module to run through the tool

3. Support your students with their digital capabilities

4. Provide students with a template so they know what needs to be included

5. Look for new topical themes for use each year

If you are interested in authentic assessment several related sessions were delivered at the UCL Education conference held in April 2022:

A version of the Authentic Assessment workshop devised by Ricard Osborne will take place on 22 November 2022, 12:00 pm-1:00 pm at the UCL Arena Centre. The session with be co-facilitated by Richard Osborne and Digital Assessment Advisor (DAA) Eliot Hoving. You can book to attend the session from the Arena Centre training site.

Resources

Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (3), 67-85

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authentic assessment on the Clinical Exercise and Physical Activity module

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back in 2004 Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner defined authentic assessment as: " An assessment requiring students to use the same competencies, or combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that they need to apply in the criterion situation in professional life."

# data[].attributes.body
Importance of supporting students on their skills journey, being empowered to choose and ensuring they develop a range of skills but with flexibility

# data[].attributes.body
Systems not not being able to support optional assessment i.e. VLE. They would require significant resource to manage subject to students numbers on Modules.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be good to see greater institutional guidance to support staff to embed optionality and to facilitate curated choice at programme level

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting to apply optionality in group assessmnt where the group as a whole could select their output

# data[].attributes.body
... needs to change to enable and support optionality

# data[].attributes.body
Optionality in assessment often requires an element of 'risk' for both staff and students ... it is important to have a safe space to do this that is explicit to both staff and students and where it is clear that 'failure' or the less than perfect will not be penalised. This can mean framing the assessment and evaluation criteria around the values of the processes and attempts rather than simply on 'right answer' outcomes

# data[].attributes.headline
Not clear how optionality would work with quantitative subjects other than giving a choice of questions - perhaps students could explain their approach? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Not clear how optionality would work with quantitative subjects other than giving a choice of questions - perhaps students could explain their approach? 

# data[].attributes.body
If putting in optionality around audio/ video submissions, would students who don't have the knowledge or equipment to complete these assessments be disadvantaged compared to their peers?

# data[].attributes.body
It would be useful to take a programme-level view when thinking about OiA. And it would be helpful if systems and platforms could help students make sensible choices (so the programme might specify that assessment area X, Y and Z have to be covered, but the student can choose when to do each, and maybe also to do some of them more than others (so one student will do 'XXYYZ' and another 'XYZZZ' etc.)

# data[].attributes.headline
https://www.herts.ac.uk/ltaq/learning,-teaching-and-academic-quality/home/learning-and-teaching/curriculum-design/herts-learning  I am involved in implementing principles across the programmes in my university. The principles were generated by consultation with staff and students and include offering opportunities of personalisation.  I have tried to include a link to the external facing webpages.

# data[].attributes.subject
https://www.herts.ac.uk/ltaq/learning,-teaching-and-academic-quality/home/learning-and-teaching/curriculum-design/herts-learning  I am involved in implementing principles across the programmes in my university. The principles were generated by consultation with staff and students and include offering opportunities of personalisation.  I have tried to include a link to the external facing webpages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apply online through Clearing

Herts Learning principles offer a curriculum framework within which to consider the complex task of programme design. The principles were created with our whole community and offer a basis for evolving learning, teaching and assessment approaches in a way which reinforces our commitment to community, engagement, and inclusion.

Over a period of six months, we embarked on an engagement-led approach to the development of the principles that reflected our renewed approach to education, and which could transform the student experience. Our Herts Learning principles will be implemented in all academic programmes by September 2025 through an accelerated, re-designed approach to programme review and validation that brings the principles to the front and centre of the development process, engaging academic and professional teams as well as students throughout.

This engagement-led approach resulted in a reflective toolkit (requires UH login) based around the principles and facilitates a pragmatic and collaborative approach to curriculum review and design. The toolkit and principles are now threaded through the routine processes of validation, periodic review, and continuous enhancement.

If you have any questions or need support, talk to the Herts Learning team, or explore the Herts Hub resources for more useful information (requires UH login).

# data[].attributes.headline
Does optionality work better later in studies 

# data[].attributes.subject
Does optionality work better later in studies 

# data[].attributes.headline
Example of PGCAP - small  cohorts (c45), students have choice of format, students do need scaffolding, they draw on past experiences so will stick with what they know 

# data[].attributes.subject
Example of PGCAP - small  cohorts (c45), students have choice of format, students do need scaffolding, they draw on past experiences so will stick with what they know 

# data[].attributes.body
My learning – a radical idea from Melanie-Marie Haywood that involved students choosing their own assessment and to support this their own themes and content during their degree (which could be extended to any particular time period). This pulled ideas from interdisciplinary degrees and the framework for this included free education. I like the idea that one assessment idea could be going back to the start of your degree and rethinking the teaching approach and content that had been used as your assessment submission.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leeds Arts University - no policy, small institution, they do have a panel reviews all briefs and checks that assessment briefs are equivalent in terms of student workload. This would support optionality in assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
Leeds Arts University - no policy, small institution, they do have a panel reviews all briefs and checks that assessment briefs are equivalent in terms of student workload. This would support optionality in assessment

# data[].attributes.body
How do we create a safe space for staff to try this out with mitigation of the risk to them that they perceive?

# data[].attributes.body
PG unit in Education, offer students the option of various forms of assessments, some examples given but also the option for students to chose their own mode of assessment to evidence achievement of the ILOs. As part of the assessment, students must submit 500 explanation as to why they have chosen that mode.

Students who opt to chose a different mode need to have a discussion with the module lead before embarking on their assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
In the following case study Dr Nicole Brown, Associate Professor and Head of Research Ethics and Integrity at IOE, talks about how assessment optionality works on her module BASC0039: Disability, Chronic Illness and Neurodivergence in Contemporary Society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The current discourse within Higher Education is strongly anchored in and based upon the students as partners in learning. And yet, this rarely includes assessments, which are used to determine students' specific achievements and to identify whether and in how far learning outcomes and objectives have been achieved. If, however, students are to take responsibility for their learning, then why are they not also in charge of their assessments?

Quote from chapter on Assessments: letting students decide in Student Empowerment in Higher Education: Reflecting on Teaching Practice and Learner Engagement.

In the following case study Dr Nicole Brown, Associate Professor and Head of Research Ethics and Integrity at IOE, talks about how assessment optionality works on her module BASC0039: Disability, Chronic Illness and Neurodivergence in Contemporary Society.

It expands on some of the ideas explored in her recent MicroCPD video Assessments: letting students choose.

Overview

The module BASC0039: Disability, Chronic Illness and Neurodivergence in Contemporary Society is an interdisciplinary module which looks at disability chronic illness from a wide range of disciplinary contexts including a medical and legal point of view. Students are taught about auto-ethnicity as part of the course as it is important that we recognize our own positions within our society when approaching the matter of disability. Many of the students on the course have some experience of chronic illness, either personally or through family members. With this in mind it felt inappropriate and unfair to demand a particular form of assessment. For the assessment students can choose between a written submission or a recorded presentation as a critical commentary, this is combined with an artefact that can take any form. The submission is marked using a rubric ( Level 5 Artefact and critical commentary assessment criteria and Level 6 Artefact and critical commentary assessment criteria). Student response to the optionality has been positive. The approach also has many benefits in regard to academic integrity, in particular considering current challenges to essay writing from Artificial Intelligence (AI). As Nicole explains: " making an assessment meaningful actually prevents you from having some of the plagiarism and academic misconduct issues that other modules encounter."

Nicole's tips for considering optionality:

Employing optionality and making assessments meaningful leads to students wanting to complete the assessment task

It works particularly well when there are many different perspectives on the assessment topic

Remember that optionality supports accessibility and academic integrity.

Think about taking it further - what about rolling dates and ungrading?

Reference

Brown, N., Morea-Ghergu, D. & Onwuka, N. (2020). Assessments: letting students decide. In: Mawani, S., & Mukadam, A. (eds). Student Empowerment in Higher Education: Reflecting on Teaching Practice and Learner Engagement. Vol. 2. Berlin: Logos Verlag. 487-498.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Letting students decide on their assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The current discourse within Higher Education is strongly anchored in and based upon the students as partners in learning. And yet, this rarely includes assessments, which are used to determine students' specific achievements and to identify whether and in how far learning outcomes and objectives have been achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
At Uni of Liverpool, we have been working on a negotiated assessment policy - currently running as 'flexible assessment' policy - not quite ratified yet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overall view no policy or specific guidance given, optionality is allowed as part of the general framework but not specifically mentioned

# data[].attributes.subject
Overall view no policy or specific guidance given, optionality is allowed as part of the general framework but not specifically mentioned

# data[].attributes.headline
Experimental trial to develop the evidence base

# data[].attributes.subject
Experimental trial to develop the evidence base

# data[].attributes.headline
Inflexible/restrictive policy to encourage change in assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
Inflexible/restrictive policy to encourage change in assessment

# data[].attributes.headline
Only policy relates to constructive alignment, guidence on amount of assessment but very vague (Abertay University)

# data[].attributes.subject
Only policy relates to constructive alignment, guidence on amount of assessment but very vague (Abertay University)

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment load model from UCL - proposes equivalences between formats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guidelines for ensuring programme level consistency for summative assessment load.

# data[].attributes.headline
We promote personalisation of programmes across the University of Hertfordshire and some programmes embed smaller opportunities for options in a general way where others are more ambitious such as offering a choice of module descriptor for some modules to meet the same learning outcomes. This is not for every module on the programme and students chose using a voting system

# data[].attributes.subject
We promote personalisation of programmes across the University of Hertfordshire and some programmes embed smaller opportunities for options in a general way where others are more ambitious such as offering a choice of module descriptor for some modules to meet the same learning outcomes. This is not for every module on the programme and students chose using a voting system

# data[].attributes.body
Alternative assessment is currently limited to

"students in approved categories where the need is foreseeable. Disabled students will be treated according to the separate guidance..."

# data[].attributes.body
We trialled offering a choice of assessment format in an Accounting & Finance course (recorded presentation Vs live presentation). It proved so popular we are extending this to include a choice of topic this year too!

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment is to test learning outcomes and ensure our students acquire skills as well as knowledge.

Many students see assessment as a means to an end: their classification.

Therefore, we need to break any peer to peer "myths" about one type of assessment being seen as easier or less work than another.

# data[].attributes.headline
Consideration of fluctuating medical needs, disability, and mental health challenges on chosen assessment methods, and the need for flexibility/an immediate 'Plan B' in these circumstances. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Consideration of fluctuating medical needs, disability, and mental health challenges on chosen assessment methods, and the need for flexibility/an immediate 'Plan B' in these circumstances. 

# data[].attributes.body
While we all have to conform to a hard deadline in accordance with the Board of Examiners timelines, the weeks/months prior to this could be opened up for negotiated deadlines. One of my colleagues uses this to allow his students to propose their preferred submission point. They then negotiate the date and terms of the deadline. It works very well for them but they do have small cohorts, so I haven't explored the scalability of this approach. (Chris Whiting, York St John)

# data[].attributes.body
I think about the ongoing sustainability of optional assessment for both staff and students. I work on a relatively new programme with a small but growing number of students. Yr1 -44 Yr2 73. With added pressure on staff is it maintainable to a high standard to support students. Thinking about the students what support might they then need to do the assessment in the way they want. How can we support the variety of assessment formats for students?

These are not unachievable but may need some thinking about.

# data[].attributes.body
MSc Physicians Associate programme has uses a limited student choice in their research module.

In a nut shell students are able to between formats for completing the assessment.

This both meets the needs of neurodiverse students but also enables students to acquire/develop skills they feel they will need in the profession

# data[].attributes.body
Students can sometimes find choice more stressful and would prefer not to have a choice - or they select one choice then part way through change their mind and feel they're behind other students, or feel they might have done better if they'd chosen another option ...satisfaction issues to consider.

# data[].attributes.body
In the School of Digital Arts (and I believe other areas in the Arts & Humanities Faculty) students are sometimes given a choice between different modes of assessment in specific units. An example at L6 is a critical study unit where students choose between an academic written essay, video essay, or presentation - all formats have the same unit LOs and assessment criteria. It was introduced to address different learning styles and a range of academic skills for the only 'theory' unit in an otherwise practice-based curriculum - optionality has increased student engagement and (hard to evidence the link but potentially) a rise in student outcomes. Really key is a clear understanding and tailoring of each format's mapping to LOs/assessment criteria and coherently designed marking matrix to make this clear to students; also to ensure each format is academically supported (which impacts on workload)

# data[].attributes.body
Across the whole programme the students choose their topic related to the unit. The assessment brief does provide some parameters but the scope is quite wide and allows for individual areas of interest to be explored. Formats for each unit is more well defined but students still have an element of choice, for example on one unit the students have a choice of a recorded presentation (this can be however they choose to present - video/slides) or a do a live presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
We implemented Student Choice in 2021 and completed a review of the take up per faculty this year. Interestingly, the use of student choice has been popular, but its take up varies with the Life sciences and education faculties utilising this option across subjects and levels, whilst the more engineering and business subjects / faculties take up has been slower with a tendency to stay with tried and tested assessment methodology. The students however have embraced this method with excellent feedback across the board.

# data[].attributes.body
It's sometimes worth demystifying and deconstructing the academic language used in learning outcomes and/or assessment briefs by engaging in co-construction activity 'with' students. It can act as a mutual learning experience where tutors get an understanding of students' assessment literacy and students get insight into institutional process (and disciplinary jargon) in an informal relaxed environment.

# data[].attributes.body
In Year 2 of our pre registration nursing degree we offer students the opportunity take a unit that allows them to choose both the topic and format of assessment. The unit is at Level 5 and is worth ten credits. The students work under field specific supervision to agree and produce the resulting assessment. The topic does not have to be about nursing but should be health care related. Both students and unit staff enjoy the challenges within the unit.

# data[].attributes.body
Choice of topic is often offered for essay / lit review type assessments and presentations, these are usually structured in some way so that the question is defined, but the case study or process is open to the student to choose. Also, choice of format is built into some assignments for example placement projects where the delivered output / artefact can take a number of forms, report, video, model, event, marketing materials etc which would be accompanied by a reflection on the process and their success in meeting the original brief.

# data[].attributes.body
Staff are concerned about the implications of offering choice. A focus on developing rubrics and marking criteria focusing on the learning outcomes would helpful as would an institutional culture of supporting staff when things don't go quite to plan.

# data[].attributes.body
Staff on our PGCAP submit a patchwork assessment for 1 of their modules. Staff can choose the mode of submission from a choice of: professional conversation, audio, video or written piece. For the second module they produce a negotiated output.

# data[].attributes.body
To ensure that students are assessed using a range of methods overall (rather than choosing the same one each time that they think they are best at)

# data[].attributes.body
Need to develop a marking rubric which clearly maps to each modality ensures equity and parity of student outcomes

# data[].attributes.body
When offering wide choice of modality-students felt a bit disconcerting.....they wanted to be told what the best option was!

# data[].attributes.headline
Reflective Assignment (level 7) University of Manchester

# data[].attributes.subject
Reflective Assignment (level 7) University of Manchester

# data[].attributes.body
Participants could choose their own modalilty to record their critical reflections on their journey as an educator (e.g. vlog, blog, Infographic, sway or other presentation, written essay, Youtube video etc)

# data[].attributes.headline
Managing Change PGT Unit level 7  University of Manchester

# data[].attributes.subject
Managing Change PGT Unit level 7  University of Manchester

# data[].attributes.body
Students chose between a presentation or a written assignment

# data[].attributes.headline
University of Northampton, BA Learning and Teaching Top Up module

# data[].attributes.subject
University of Northampton, BA Learning and Teaching Top Up module

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Negotiated assessment | Learning and Teaching Enhancement

# data[].attributes.body
Learner choice of how and when to show have met the LOs, maybe at a programme level.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lancaster University, PG Cert Educational Practice  

# data[].attributes.subject
Lancaster University, PG Cert Educational Practice  

# data[].attributes.body
In the PGCert for staff new to teaching we have recently changed the assessment to offer a choice of media - 2000-2500 written piece or 15-20 minute equivalent oral piece.

# data[].attributes.body
equity of the assessment

not enough time/staffing/funding

grade inflation

lack of examples to share with students

# data[].attributes.body
Third year biology students can work independently or as part of a team to create a resource or creative piece, the relevance and utility of which is then evaluated. The eLearning team showcases a wide range of resources/software that can be used and the students decide which fits their project best.

# data[].attributes.body
If assessment is mapped to module or degree course learning outcomes, how does this work with optionality of assessment? How could two different types of assessment meet the same LOs? How can we be sure students are leaving with comparable skills to one another?

# data[].attributes.body
Choice of assessment is available across a number of departments. In a Music module, students can choose between a standard and a video essay. In a History module, students can choose between a standard essay and a public history project. In a Classics module, students can choose between an essay, poster, reflective text or media work. This covers level 5 and level 6 modules.

The History choice was new for 22/23 and it was noted that very few students chose the public history project - reflection on this is taking place this year.

# data[].attributes.body
Difficulties in standardising assessment across 'modes' and through rubrics. We offer rubrics based upon assessment modality rather than the assessments LO's. Unpacking this for students can be a challenge.

# data[].attributes.body
Programme level choice - where restrictions exist students 'pick n mix'

# data[].attributes.body
We offer choice in terms of 'case' within the assessment briefs (e.g. L4 Sport and Exercise Psychology)

We also offer flexibility within 'portfolio' style assessments, where students can submit their portfolio of evidence either via a word doc, blog, vlog etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
University College Dublin - Choice of Assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
University College Dublin - Choice of Assessment

# data[].attributes.body
UCD Choice of Assessment Methods Project with Case Study and examples

# data[].attributes.body
Authentic/real world assessment

# data[].attributes.body
AI - tendancy to default to exams

# data[].attributes.body
Limits in Student Records Systems (no flex)

# data[].attributes.body
PSRB - less prescription to allow more optionality

# data[].attributes.body
Just to note- we have faced institutional difficulty in relation to optionality in assessment...it seems that we cannot (for some administrative reason) offer students a choice between different assessment modes (i.e. we could not offer an Essay mode/Distance Exam mode/Test (e.g. MCQ) mode as different options). The formal mode of assessment has to be the same. Some work around with this within an assessment mode- so, for example, under our 'Project' assessment mode I was able to introduce optionality, but we cannot do this across modes. I'm curious as to whether this is an issue in other institutions?

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment equivalences guidance?

# data[].attributes.body
Students choose between a poster presentation or a pre-recorded oral presentation (Level 6, optional module)