Formative Assessment: Balancing Educational Effectiveness and Resource Efficiency

Abstract

This paper summarises the key findings of recent educational research undertaken at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, which was supported by the UK Centre for Education in the Built Environment. The research critically analyses dilemmas between educational effectiveness and resource efficiency when considering formative assessment. Formative assessment is defined as ‘work that a student carries out during a course for which they get feedback to improve their learning, whether marked or not’. The key aim of the research is to identify and share good practice, and show the wide range of feedback options possible. A range of staff within the School of the Built Environment reflected on their own experience through the use of templates and various seminars. The research findings highlight the crucial importance of assessment generally, and formative assessment in particular, on student learning in higher education. Research pressures, larger classes and more distance learning are all challenges that make the balancing act between resource efficiency and educational effectiveness increasingly precarious. This research has not unearthed any magic solutions, but identifies practical principles and examples of how others deal with these dilemmas.

Keywords:

• Assessment
• Formative Assessment
• Feedback

Introduction

Context

The School of the Built Environment at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh obtained an ‘Innovative Project in Learning and Teaching’ grant from the Centre for Education in the Built Environment (the UK Higher Education Academy subject centre) to undertake and disseminate research into formative assessment. The School includes a number of built environment professions: planning, surveying, civil engineering, construction management, architectural engineering and housing. It offers a growing number of distance learning programmes to students across the globe. The research looks particularly at dilemmas between educational effectiveness and resource efficiency. In the current climate of higher education, when it is widely recognised that both staff and students face resource and time pressures, there is general agreement that assessment is an issue that is particularly important and challenging (Ross, 2005, p.12). It has been shown that improvements to assessment practice can be fostered by sharing information about what has been tried elsewhere (Quality Assurance Agency, 2007, p.4).

For the purposes of this paper, formative assessment is defined as ‘work that a student carries out during a course for which they get feedback to improve their learning, whether marked or not’. It therefore can be distinguished from ‘summative assessment’, which occurs at an endpoint, summarising a student’s achievements. Formative assessment can take a great variety of forms. It can be written or verbal, formal or informal and can be delivered by the lecturer, peers, outside collaborators or oneself. There is a constant tension between formative and summative assessment, methods that work well for one may not work well for the other (Gibbs, 1998, p.5).

Aims

Key aims of this paper are to:

• Identify and share good practice in formative assessment, highlight the wide range of diversity possible and explore tensions between educational effectiveness and resource efficiency.

• Encourage lecturers’ reflections on their own experience of formative assessment, deepening and broadening their thinking about possible improvements and alternative practice.

Methods

The following research methods were used:

• A literature review highlights key issues and principles.

• Using the School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University as a case study, template forms to prompt reflection were completed voluntarily by academics to describe and evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of different types of formative assessment already in use, from the point of view of both students and staff. The template used can be found in Table 2 in the Analysis section.

• Student views were gathered through student-staff committees and feedback during particular courses.

• A seminar organised by the research team in 2009 shared experience gathered through the project, involving staff from the School, Heriot-Watt University, the wider higher education community, a professional institute and employers. The research team also presented workshops during 2010 at the Heriot-Watt University Learning & Teaching Conference and the Scottish Higher Education Academy Annual Enhancement Themes Conference. Discussion during these seminars informed the research.

Review of Formative Assessment Theory and Principles

There is a considerable literature about assessment generally and formative assessment particularly. The topics have also been the subject of significant activity by the Higher Education Academy in both Scotland and England.

Wider issues about assessment generally

Assessment serves many diverse purposes: motivating students; directing and enhancing learning; providing feedback to students and lecturers about student understanding; and checking whether learning outcomes are being achieved (Zou, 2008, pp.82–83). The influential MacFarlane Report (Committee of Scottish University Principals, 1992) found that assessment is the single most important factor in students’ learning (Falchikov, 1995, p.160). What and how assessment is carried out has a profound influence, for better or worse, on learning and is a major factor that can encourage either surface or deep learning (George and Cowan, 1999, pp.98–99). Evidence shows that there is a direct relationship between the development and evaluation of assessment criteria and the development of whole programmes of learning (Mortimer, 1998, p.186).

Despite its proven importance, there is substantial evidence suggesting that there is significant room for improvement in assessment (George and Cowan, 1999, p.99). Setting appropriate assessment is complex and not easy; many factors need to be taken into account, including numbers of students, time, resources and course objectives (Zou, 2008, p.83). Recent Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) reviews reveal that assessment is generally a weak area when compared to other aspects of the curriculum; feedback is too often slow and negative, failing to provide adequate guidance for students (Yorke, 2005, p.127). Recent student surveys highlight widespread and growing dissatisfaction with guidance and feedback, a concern echoed by evidence from recent quality assessment visits (QAA, 2007, p.2). The UK National Student Survey consistently shows that student satisfaction with assessment and feedback receives lower scores than other indicators (Nicol, 2009, p.9).

Recent work in Scotland shows that changes to assessment practices have not kept pace with the changing environment in higher education (Hornby, 2005, p.15). The rise in student numbers has stretched the unit of resource, resulting in unintended consequences; there is not enough formative assessment; feedback is too often slow and not meaningful; learning outcomes are often assessed several times with no rationale; and mechanisms are poor for co-ordination across courses. Although there is a growing recognition of the value of having a varied assessment regime, there continues to be too much emphasis placed on exams and standard tutor-marked essays and reports (Hornby, 2005, p.17). Students have become more demanding and senior managers increasingly concerned with metrics of retention and results. On top of these challenges, lecturers are under increasing pressure to improve research scores, secure funding and develop new courses and delivery methods (Hornby, 2005, pp.16–17).

There are clearly conflicts between streamlining assessment and diversifying assessment to cope with changes in higher education and student learning needs. There are also tensions between making teaching and assessment more efficient on cost grounds and giving students a better learning experience; lecturers need to be more efficient with their assessment given increasing resource pressures (Ross, 2005, pp.12–13). Given all the current pressures, convincing colleagues to change their assessment practice can be complex and difficult, requiring different levels of both risk and support (Land, 2005, p.29).

The MacFarlane Report observed that UK students are increasingly strategic in their use of time, dominated by perceived demands of the assessment system (Committee of Scottish University Principals, 1992). This is in part a cultural and economic phenomenon as more students are working and competing for jobs, resulting in a careful use of their effort for grades; they only do what is assessed (Gibbs, 1998, p.26). Some students are more concerned with the mark than what they understand, resulting in a mismatch between marks and learning outcomes (Mortimer, 1998, p.186). Students too often play the ‘assessment game’, trying to find out what is expected and not taking risks with something more ambitious (Yorke, 2005, p.128).

Specific issues about formative assessment in particular

The principal purpose of formative assessment is developmental, to help students monitor their own understanding and progress. Its nature is diagnostic, identifying weaknesses allowing students to spend time and effort on improvement (Petty, 2004, p.463). The process of formative assessment is a key way that reflectivity can be enhanced (Hadrill, 1995, p.169). Regular formative assessment can be motivational, as continuous feedback is integral to the learning experience, stimulating and challenging students (Leach et al., 1998, p.204). From the lecturer’s point of view, formative assessment is also an opportunity to find out if the learning they planned is actually happening (George and Cowan, 1999, p.9). It can therefore be used during a course to form judgements on the success of learning so that remedial action can be taken before it is too late (Petty, 2004, p.449).

A comprehensive review carried out by Black and Wiliam in 1998 found conclusively that formative assessment results in learning gains, amongst the most considerable for educational interventions. Other research also shows that assessment providing informative feedback while a student is learning has more effect on student achievement than any other factor (Petty, 2004, p.450). Formative assessment with its feedback function can strongly influence motivation, encouraging interest, commitment, intellectual challenge, independence and responsibility; it is impossible to overstate the role of effective feedback on a student’s progress (Ramsden, 1992, pp.184–185, 193).

Yorke gives several reasons why formative assessment is increasingly under threat: paradoxically, the UK government’s concern with standards of attainment and accountability favours summative over formative assessment; research too often draws attention away from teaching; and curriculum unitisation increases attention on summative assessment over formative (Yorke, 2005, p.127). This is echoed by a recent QAA report, stating that a significant concern about contemporary practice is that summative assessment receives far more attention that formative (QAA, 2007, p.2). Formative assessment has been neglected in both public policy and everyday practice (Black, 1999, p.118). In an expanding higher education system, it is difficult to maintain levels and quality of feedback, presenting significant problems for lecturers who take formative assessment seriously. It takes time to achieve deep learning, developing critical and transferable skills. Giving formative feedback can be very expensive and time consuming; moreover it can de-motivate or be useless if ambiguous or too brief (Gibbs, 1998, p.17).

Principles relating to educational effectiveness

In light of all these challenges, effective policies and guidelines at various levels (university, department and course) are required to address quality in assessment (Moore, 1995, p.107). Fostering an institutional and departmental culture encouraging reflection and personal development for both staff and students is important (Wisdom, 2006, p.193). It is important to see how assessment builds up across a whole course of study, linked to educational aims and learning outcomes; we need to analyse how assessment works across the whole curriculum from a student’s point of view (Boud, 1995, pp.42–43). Students need to be explicitly aware of what is being assessed, why and how (Moore, 1995, p.101). There should be a good balance between formative and summative assessment (George and Cowan, 1999, p.17). Criteria for measuring educational effectiveness across a programme might include: the extent to which assessment is linked to skills and competencies, constructive alignment to learning outcomes, variety of methods and avoiding student overload that will lead to surface approaches (Hornby, 2005, p.18).

Lecturers should be explicit about assessment methods and criteria and discuss these with students so they are clear about what constitutes good work. It is not good enough to give students assessment criteria, they need to participate actively in deepening their understanding of what good work is (Sambell et al., 2002, p.142). Sharing ownership of marking criteria with students by engaging them in producing them in the first place can lead to more meaningful understanding and less anxiety (Mortimer, 1998, p.181). Formative assessment should build confidence; trust is important and lecturers need to be encouraging, constructive and sensitive if students are to feel safe in facing up to their difficulties (Crooks, 2001, pp.4, 8). Lecturers should remember that students’ feelings are part of the whole assessment issue (Baume, 1998, p.5).

Yorke (2005, p.126) encourages lecturers to consider a range of both formal and informal methods of formative assessment. Most academics think mainly about formal written processes transmitting feedback from lecturer to student, but we need to encourage a wider range of formats, especially informal processes where the student is acting self-critically.

The issue of effective feedback is central to any discussion of formative assessment but it has been argued that feedback is under-conceptualised in the theoretical literature, making it hard to design effective practice and evaluate quality (Yorke, 2003). A major study funded by the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA) researched how students engage with assessment feedback. The research found a wide range of feedback methods currently in use but confusion about its purpose, leading to disagreement amongst both staff and students about how to make it useful. One of the many problems with student engagement is the lack of clarity between the roles of formative and summative assessment (Handley et al., 2008, pp.6, 8). It is not automatic that students will engage with feedback provided to them, however carefully crafted. Staff engagement with feedback can be constrained by resources and institutional policies. With limited resources, there is a need to take care that it is not wasted on ineffective feedback (Handley et al., 2008, p.6). The study recommends that both students and staff participate in dialogue aimed at improving student engagement with feedback, which can occur at course, programme and institutional level. Student engagement with feedback is strongly influenced by their ability to understand and apply it, which is linked to their own expectations relating to themselves, the lecturer and the assessment criteria (Handley et al., 2008, p.6). One-off interventions are unlikely to be successful, more radical, programme-level changes are recommended, aimed at both staff and students (Handley et al., 2008, p.9). The higher education community is urged to see feedback as both a product and a process, recognising that the relationship between a student and lecturer conditions success. Recommendations include the use of professional development activities, mentoring, student dialogue and encouraging staff to use feedback to shape their teaching (Handley et al., 2008, pp.11, 34).

After giving feedback, it helps to ask what students find useful or not and why (Baume, 1998, p.20). Feedback should include ‘feedforward’ which are explicit suggestions for improvement in the future (Lines and Mason, 2005, p.10). Feedback is not a case of simple transmission from the lecturer, it is a complex process that is not often easily decoded or deciphered. It presupposes that students have evaluative skills similar to the lecturer, therefore we need to strengthen self assessment skills involving students monitoring their own work (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2005, pp.105–108). Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2005, p.105) put forward two central arguments: formative assessment and feedback should be used to empower students as self-regulated learners; more recognition should be given to the role of feedback on learners’ motivation and self esteem.

A major HEA-funded study on effective formative feedback identified seven key principles: facilitate development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning, encourage teacher and peer dialogue about learning, clarify what good performance is, provide opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance, deliver high quality information to students about their learning, encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem and provide information to teachers that can be used in their teaching (Juwah et al., 2004).

Principles relating to efficiency

It is important that assessment is efficient and a good use of lecturers’ time, especially given large numbers of students (Baume, 1998, p.10). A number of researchers have put forward ideas to promote efficiency:

Strategic curriculum review: The overall assessment load could be reduced by avoiding over assessment and repetition, while ensuring a mixture of methods (Brown, 2001, p.18). Lines & Mason (2005, p.4) suggest that efficiency comes from assessing learning outcomes only once and having synoptic assessment at the end of the year. Reductions could include exempting students from an exam on the basis of coursework performance and rebalancing assessment between modules (Hornby, 2005, p.22).

Use of IT: Baume (1998, p.23) suggests an assessment criteria matrix and/or bank of comments and model answers to quicken marking. E-assessment including using IT to give tests with instant computer feedback can help, especially with large classes; students learn while the questions are fresh in their minds (Butcher et al., undated).

Group assessment: can mean less marking, more is achieved and different skills are developed. In groups, formative assessment could be peer assessment with one group giving feedback on another group’s product or processes (Brown et al., 1995, p.83). Teamwork is an increasingly important transferable skill for employers: there are problems of free riders but there are ways to overcome this and assign marks fairly (Hornby, 2005, pp.25–26).

In-class assessment: can include possible periodic tests, assessing each other and gaining exemption from the final exam (Hornby, 2005, p.23).

Oral informal feedback: given in tutorials, labs and field trips can obviate the need for writing anything down (Baume, 1998, pp.24–26).

Peer and self-assessment: can cut down work for lecturers while actively engaging students in assessing work and devising assessment criteria (Baume, 1998, p.26). Results from over twenty studies of peer assessment found that they were generally reliable in a variety of contexts, although it has to be acknowledged that some students do not like marking their peers (Falchikov, 1995, p.160). Self and peer assessment is especially appropriate in the context of learning about oneself and others, about appraisal and life-long learning, employment, career progression and continuing professional development (Mortimer, 1998, p.175).

Table 1 Assessment Methods showing both Efficiency and Effectiveness Issues

Assessment Method	Efficiency	Effectiveness
Strategic curriculum review	Avoids over-assessment and repetition; encourages synoptic assessment	Ensures mixture of methods; emphasises student experience; focus on quality of feedback; encourages deep learning
Use of IT	Speeds up marking although takes time to set up; good for repeat comments and large classes	Timely feedback and good quality can be assured
Peer assessment	Reduces lecturer’s work; students learn from each other	Deepens understanding by engaging students in marking criteria and outcomes; fosters confidence; encourages dialogue
Self assessment	Reduces lecturer’s work	Deepens self-reflection; leads to life-long learning; fosters independence
Oral feedback	Good use of class time, no need to write, more informal	Timely feedback, personalised but students need to find it meaningful
In-class assessment	Good use of class time	Timely feedback, good use of class time, eases pressure on summative assessment
Group assessment	Less marking but takes time to address group problems	Develops transferable skills and peer learning

Differing students’ needs

Care needs to be taken that assessment takes account of the increasingly diverse student population which challenges some traditional methods of assessment (Hornby, 2005, p.18). Widening participation to students from non-traditional backgrounds means that time and care need to be taken for acculturation into academic practices, including assessment; for example, some students will inevitably need much more help with essays and dissertations (Land, 2005, pp.33–34). Widening participation has brought more mature and more diverse students as well as greater numbers, but education often still runs along the lines of when it was more elite. Problems that some students experience are aggravated when they do not receive good formative assessment to help them improve (Yorke, 2005, p.129). Internationalisation bringing together students from different cultures can bring its own tensions to do with expectations and previous experience. For example, the rationale for supporting peer and group assessment might conflict with the learning cultures of some students, given the hierarchical importance accorded teachers (Land, 2005, p.33).

It is especially important in the assessment of independent distance learning students to give guidance to help students understand but it is often difficult to give sufficient feedback without an opportunity for informal discussion. Given the pressure of work, feedback is often too late and therefore difficult for students to understand and act upon (Butcher et al., undated).

A key distinction in assessment at a distance is the small window of opportunity to assess formally, as opposed to informal contact that face-to-face learners have. Distance learners are therefore more dependent on effective, early communication of assessment requirements, well-designed and cohesive assessment tasks, useful and timely support and a transparent marking scheme explaining judgements. They are also more dependent on rapid turnaround of assignments, so that feedback can affect subsequent effort, maximising its formative nature (Morgan and O’Reilly, 1999, p.22). Key qualities of distance learning assessment are clear rationale and consistent pedagogical approach; explicit values, aims, criteria and standards; authentic and holistic tasks; a facilitative degree of structure; sufficient and timely formative assessment; and awareness of the learning context and perceptions (Morgan & O’Reilly, 1999, pp.30–32).

Key findings from the literature review

To summarise main points from the literature review, both lecturers and students face increasing pressures within the current higher education environment. All the evidence points to the fact that timely and meaningful feedback and sound formative assessment practices are likely to enhance learning more than any other educational innovation (Knight, 2002), but these are subjects which are too often underdeveloped. A strategic approach and sustained leadership and commitment are needed, as there are no quick fixes (Yorke, 2005, p.134). Avoiding ‘chopping and changing’ or dealing in ‘deficit models’, there is a need to look at the system as a whole and shift sights higher, taking risks and using imagination (Hutchison, 2005, pp.41, 43). Lecturers need to be open to practice innovations and prepared to accept change which challenges their own views (Ross, 2005, pp.13–-14).

As part of this reflection, there is a need to balance educational effectiveness against the efficient management of resources (Hornby, 2005). As Gibbs and Jenkins (1992) discuss, strategic options are a choice between ‘control’ strategies and ‘independent’ strategies. The former uses traditional assessment methods with greater efficiency, the later shifts responsibility for formative assessment to the student themselves to enhance student performance and motivation. Engaging both students and staff in discussion of formative assessment as both process and product is crucial (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006).

Analysis of Current Practice in Case Study School

The following sections analyse findings from the case study research, linked to themes highlighted in the above literature review.

Staff and student engagement in the research

A key aspect of the research was asking staff within the School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, to fill in templates reflecting on their current practice. Staff were asked to describe their formative assessment and evaluate resource requirements against educational value, including student comments (see Table 2 below). Out of a staff complement of 63, 12 volunteered, completing a total of 18 templates for different courses within disciplines throughout the School (for the full report, including templates, see Higgins et al., 2010). This, of course, is a self-selecting sample. Volunteers included senior and junior staff, including the School’s Director of Learning and Teaching and two Directors of Studies. It was difficult to engage many staff in the exercise, confirming the pressures consistently highlighted in the literature review, and it proved equally difficult to engage students in extra work outside the curriculum. Both blamed pressure of work and it was clear that many staff prioritised their other research over educational issues and were feeling beleaguered by large student numbers, including distance learning demands. Staff who completed the templates tended to be those most interested in pedagogic issues. However, it is important to note that a recent University imperative required all staff to include formative assessment within their courses, when a move was made from three terms to two longer semesters. This requirement was specifically brought in to deepen learning.

Table 2 Template to promote reflection about formative assessment at course level

Course title:

Highlights of formative assessment approach:

Subject area:

Brief description, including relationship to summative assessment and timing:

Method of formative assessment:

Student group, location and average number:

Staff resource required:

Student feedback about effectiveness in promoting learning:

Staff reflection about effectiveness and efficiency:

Ideas for improvement/other comments:

At a seminar on formative assessment methods held within the School as part of the project, staff were extremely positive about the chance to share ideas with colleagues and it was clear during this interaction that assessment issues were genuinely interdisciplinary and not confined within subject boundaries. In a similar vein, it was clear that discussions about formative assessment linked to wider educational issues. This interaction helped new staff with their induction, encouraged a more strategic analysis of assessment across whole programmes, linked with activities planned for new first year study groups and aided in discussions addressing low scores within the National Student Survey. Most seminar participants remarked that it was unusual to share practice with each other and wished that it would happen more often. It was also helpful to have a professional institute and at least one employer attending the event, who said they were heartened that such discussions go on within higher education. Even though it proved impossible to engage all staff, those who did participate in this research found it a valuable means of structured communication with colleagues.

Student feedback

Student views and comments as reported on the templates and student-staff committees illustrated that they did appreciate prompt and meaningful feedback received in time to make a difference to their learning. Good feedback can definitely improve learning, leading to higher student evaluations. In contrast, staff were often frustrated at the poor take-up of non-assessed feedback; many students did not avail themselves of informal written or oral feedback. Students said that staff need to motivate them to seek feedback, engendering a culture from the start of the course where feedback is explicitly discussed, experienced and valued. Otherwise, misunderstandings can occur because students do not always realise when they are receiving feedback, particularly if different methods are used.

There were mixed student views about group work. If students were in a group that functioned well, there was clear evidence of enriched learning, but plenty of student complaints about groups where people did not pull their weight. Students are not always comfortable giving each other marks reflecting performance. This was evident in discussions about peer assessment as well, which received mixed reviews from students. There was evidence, however, that if students understand the value of peer assessment and can see that “staff really believe in it”, initial misgivings can give way to acceptance that it can genuinely help students evaluate their own work better.

Exemplary Practices Illustrating Effectiveness

In general, there was a wide variety of formative assessment reported on the templates, including group work, peer assessment and, to a lesser extent, self evaluation. Feedback was given to students both formally and informally, in writing and orally. Some of the many different methods are described briefly in the following analysis. Analysis of the case study templates with further staff discussions at a seminar organised to bring together research findings led to the following insights about the effectiveness of formative assessment:

Staff opinion on effectiveness of formative assessment

This research is based on staff members who volunteered their experience and is therefore somewhat biased, as the staff are a self-selecting group who were already interested in formative assessment. In general, they were very much in favour of formative assessment where it did not increase their workload considerably. As a result, some methods of formative assessment were partially summative but were included if they also directly contributed to a better performance in subsequent summative assessment. The use of formative assessment is likely to be less extensive in the group who did not participate in this work.

One of the main findings from staff was that they confirmed that more formative assessment helped them learn about levels of student understanding while a course was in progress, enabling them to take corrective action as necessary to achieve intended learning outcomes. This dynamic approach to teaching must allow more potential for effective student learning.

Use of IT

Many staff members were quick to embrace new possibilities for assessment through the use of computerised systems, including the University’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). This occurred in a variety of ways. On-line tests with instant feedback were generally liked by students as a way of monitoring their progress through a course and therefore a means of self-assessment. These tests were regarded by students and staff as good preparation for final assessments.

The VLE was used to give formative assessment interactively, including for distance learning (DL) students. This was especially useful in sharing information about different national contexts. Discussion boards and Wikis were useful for both the lecturer and other students to give feedback to each other, thus enabling group work and peer assessment even for DL students. Distance learning students have been very positive about collaboration and interaction made available through the VLE, confirming that it deepens learning.

One lecturer offered the opportunity for students to submit coursework electronically to get feedback in advance of the submission date. Only 19 of 58 took up this offer, but their marks were 3.5% higher on average than those who did not submit anything; similar results were recorded in the following year.

Group assessment

In disciplines where teamwork is an important transferable skill, it is no surprise that there are a number of group assessments throughout programmes. When it works well it seems to be extremely effective in promoting learning by allowing students informal peer assessment between themselves prior to submission. However, sometimes there are conflicts within groups, so it tends to cause tension in some cases.

Groupwork is currently used less commonly with distance learning students. However, in one distance learning course, group work is carried out successfully using the VLE to promote interaction. In this course many of the students that participated in a successful group commented that it was the best experience of their MSc programme. Although initially reticent to communicate with their unknown peers, the obligation to participate in a team of four students meant that they finally ‘met’ each other. This linking then led on to some further collaboration during the rest of their MSc.

Oral informal feedback and in-class assessment

Some lecturers rely on students to read and prepare in advance, with online material, and then use problem-based learning exercises during class, giving oral feedback. Others have tutorials where students bring drafts of assessment for which they get feedback. This shifts class emphasis away from straight lectures to inter-active learning methods. This approach is popular with students, who, although challenged, tend to work hard and value its interactive nature. The course leader admits it is a challenge to respond to all the different questions that come up but finds it rewarding and much more interesting than regurgitating lecture notes. Preparation of online material in advance to help students is generally time-consuming to produce but efficient in the long run.

Another form of in-class formative assessment is handing out previous student work and asking the class to mark it. This helps actively engage students in the assessment process and deepens understanding of marking criteria. Other staff have found it useful to use classtime for formative assessment on work that helps prepare students for the final examination. Several courses used difficult techniques formatively in coursework that were applied in a much simpler example in the exam. The aim was to test students’ understanding of analytical methods and critical thinking, rather than their memory of facts. Fast turnaround of feedback on coursework is essential.

Other staff use class time to give feedback in tutorials, either to individuals or groups. A few give marks for presentations part-way through the semester so students can learn what improvements might be required. This is generally valued by students, who appreciate the attention paid to them, and has the added benefit of pushing students to do work early, as opposed to leaving it to the last minute.

Peer assessment

Peer review can take a number of forms and can contribute to a mark or not. Several staff ask students to give each other feedback on drafts a week before assignments are due, including on individual personal development plans. One lecturer found that students were reluctant to be critical and now requires them to include at least some constructive criticism. In another example, the option to tick boxes on a form was removed and replaced with space for three comments. In order to encourage both positive and constructive criticism the space for comments was described as “two stars and a wish”. Most students have been positive about these methods. Overall they feel less comfortable about allocating marks than giving comments. Giving criticism is a professional skill to be developed and helps students engage in the marking criteria.

As stated earlier, students tend to have mixed views on peer assessment, depending on the relevance and method, with some unable to get away from the idea that it is solely the job of the lecturer. Comparison of feedback from first and second year undergraduates with Masters level students showed that Masters students were more comfortable with peer or self assessment but still preferred summative marks from a member of staff.

Marking matrices can be used for peer-assessment in-class. Students and staff can assess presentations or posters using the same forms. Thus student peer feedback can act as a check on the lecturer and help students engage more deeply with assessment criteria. This has been valued by students. In some classes, this oral assessment receives feedback in advance of a written paper, helping students know what they need to improve. But again, students can vary considerably in terms of how much attention they pay to feedback received.

Self-assessment

Self-assessment in the way that it was described in the literature is less commonly used. There was some experimentation in first year study groups, following peer assessment of draft essays. Students were asked to complete a marking matrix of their own draft which could later be compared with tutor comments. Students reported that they found this process helpful, especially during first year.

A second year course ran a group exercise where students devised criteria which were subsequently applied independently by the lecturer, a peer group and their own group. Staff then discussed marking disparities. It proved an effective way of showing students how to improve. Another lecturer asks students to create marking criteria to assess a short article that they write; this worked well for those who engaged and reflected well in later summative submissions.

Several lecturers ask students to write a reflection at the end of courses but there is evidence that some students find this hard and that attention needs to be given early in the programme to developing reflective skills. One lecturer who assesses reflective blogs found that some students are good at surface learning but lack the depth required for meaningful reflection.

Another lecturer used assessed reflective logs to allow students to explore the aspects of the subject that were most relevant to their profession, an approach that may be more successful for mature students. This included a large proportion of self-assessment where students considered their own study skills and was particularly valuable feedback to staff. Although most students had not encountered courses run in this way before the feedback from over 90% of the students was generally positive. One or two students were less happy, believing that the job of the lecturer is to lecture rather than encourage student research, and that the lecturer’s assessment is more valid than their own or their peers. Unfortunately since this feedback was anonymous it is not possible to work out what the backgrounds of these few students were and whether their experience of previous learning cultures affected their opinions.

Exploring Efficiency Issues

Staff discussion and qualitative analysis of the case-study templates with regard to specific recommendations in the above literature review about efficient formative assessment revealed the following issues:

Strategic curriculum review

Large class sizes had driven some staff to experiment with different methods of formative assessment in order to find efficient solutions to cope. Feedback was given to students both formally and informally, in writing or orally and used a variety of assessment methods including groupwork and peer assessment.

However, while there were some excellent examples of innovation and experimentation within individual courses, there was a need for a more thorough and systematic study of assessment practices throughout whole programmes. This strategic approach was generally lacking and staff were largely left to deliver what they thought best for their own courses. Co-ordination both across and between years was thin and staff were therefore not strong at getting a comprehensive view of assessment from a student perspective. For example, it was discovered by chance that peer assessment was taking place simultaneously in three courses, all in different ways, but not elsewhere in the curriculum. This lack of co-ordination in some cases led to heavy assessment loads. While there were some minimal isolated attempts to engage students in discussions about assessment and feedback, there was nothing being carried out in a meaningful or comprehensive way as advocated in the literature.

There was evidence within courses of a number of pieces of assessment requiring considerable staff resource. While the accusation of over-assessment might be levied, some members of staff specifically indicated that the wider and longer-term benefits to student learning, including reducing future staff effort, were worth the effort. Examples were given where early investment in helping students learn how to write essays helped in later essays and the dissertation.

Use of IT

Several different computerised systems were used by staff for streamlining procedures. Online tests allowed automated responses for students to check their progress. These may be time consuming to create but are efficient thereafter.

Computerised comments banks and matrices of assessment criteria speeded marking for other lecturers, which could be used in conjunction with the VLE. Several lecturers linked these to spreadsheets and/or mail merges aiding more efficient dissemination electronically to students. On reflection, this took considerable time to set up but was efficient in subsequent years.

One lecturer offered formative feedback on coursework submitted electronically a couple of weeks before the assignment deadline. Although the offer was not widely taken up it did speed up marking of the final assessment.

Group assessment

Groupwork allows efficiency savings for marking time but, as stated earlier, can lead to conflicts between students that can take time to resolve. Staff use a variety of methods to make judgements about the respective amount of work carried out by individuals within the group. One has students allocate marks out of 100 to each participant for their contribution. This is carried out both at the point of a formative assessment presentation and at the end. The lecturer also, in the middle of the semester, marks individual contributions and marks and gives feedback on the content of the group work. He finds that doing this part-way through the semester sends a powerful message to group members who may be slacking, with work generally improving thereafter.

In another course, individuals are given specific tasks within the group that can be marked. The group mark comes from how the work is assembled and presented orally. Another lecturer asks students at the end to rate group members, including themselves, on a scale of excellent to poor. Allocating these marks therefore takes on some of the characteristics of peer and self-assessment.

Although groupwork was not often used with distance learning students, in one case it was tried with reasonable success. Organising the students into groups was not time efficient and there were potentially more conflicts in groups that did not know each other beforehand. However, for the groups that worked, the students maintained contact and may have saved time as they continued to help each other through on-line discussion.

Oral informal feedback and in-class assessment

Many lecturers had been very creative in how they use class time to give formal and informal oral feedback, whether the work was marked or not. Clearly, this is time-efficient because it obviates the need to spend time outside contact hours with assessment or feedback.

One lecturer gives formative exercises on a pass/fail basis, which is much quicker to mark. Those who pass everything are guaranteed a pass for the module, no matter how they perform on the final assessment, which is an open book test, similar to the preparatory exercises students carried out all semester. Oral feedback is given in groups, where feedback is given for only one individual, but the others learn jointly from this. These arrangements make it more easily possible to deal with large classes of 60 to 100 interactively, with continuous formative assessment throughout the course.

Peer assessment

Peer review can help improve efficiency and provide considerably more feedback to students than they would get from the lecturer alone. However, students generally feel happier when marks are primarily generated by the staff.

Matrices of assessment criteria can help speed in-class marking of oral presentations or debates and ensure rapid provision of feedback to students. These matrices can be passed out to all students who use them to peer assess their colleagues.

Self-assessment

Although self-assessment was less widely used it had similar efficiencies to peer review. When matrices were used for peer assessment they could also be used in self-assessment and compared with tutor comments. Again students were happier when staff generated any marks that may contribute towards summative assessment.

In the one second year course where tutor, peer and self assessment were all tried and compared, the process was rated highly by the students. However, it was not time-efficient.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This research has highlighted the crucial importance of assessment generally and formative assessment in particular on student learning in higher education and confirmed that it is a major issue impacting on staff workloads. Formative assessment can be revealing about learning and teaching alike. Lecturers need to be open to reflecting on both of these aspects. But there are increasing demands and pressures on staff within higher education and these are likely to get even worse, given projected budget cuts. Research pressures, larger classes, more distance learning and an increasingly diverse student body are all challenges that make the balancing act between resource efficiency and educational effectiveness increasingly important. These same pressures militate against some staff engaging with the topic.

A central conclusion from the analysis of practice within the case study School is that many staff have developed innovative formative assessment over the years that has both promoted student learning and been resource efficient. The research has not unearthed any magic solutions to the dilemmas between efficiency and effectiveness, but it has identified practical principles and examples of how others deal with the conundrum. Tensions between efficiency and effectiveness will probably always exist to some degree; it is the creative management of these that is crucial.

Students often value efforts that obviously take a considerable amount of staff time. Some staff justify investing this time because it is educationally effective and saves time in the long run. During this research, discussions with students confirmed that formative assessment, if delivered well in terms of timeliness and quality, is likely to improve learning and lead to higher student evaluations. Students said themselves that it is not always apparent when they are receiving feedback and asked that lecturers be explicit. They confirmed that engendering a ‘culture of learning from feedback’ is critical.

Another key conclusion is that the creative practice of individual lecturers tends to occur in isolation. What is lacking is a strategic review of assessment across a whole programme, reflecting the student experience. Assessment has not always been fully integrated with other educational initiatives. Audits can highlight the importance of a mixture of methods and the dangers of over-assessment and duplication, while ensuring constructive alignment with programme aims, built up consistently through stages. As this research has proved within one School, improved communication between colleagues can lead to improved practice and does not happen often enough.

Other schools may wish to build on this research, which provokes reflection about formative assessment. It is suggested that a template consisting of the questions in Table 2 in the Analysis section could be distributed to staff. Students could be asked to contribute views, to be incorporated in the template. Wider discussions could occur at student-staff committees. Results could be audited across years and programmes. Specific examples of peer and self assessment, the use of IT, group projects and oral feedback could be encouraged if they are not regularly occurring.

To increase both effectiveness and efficiency there is a need to engage students in the whole assessment process by explaining why assessment is undertaken in specific ways. This will help students to understand the purpose of assessment and feedback, how it relates to the subject area and the relevance of the assessment to their skills and knowledge development. The engagement of students in the assessment process from inception through to marking is important throughout a course, starting in the first semester, and this is not happening enough. One of the results is that student take-up of formative assessment opportunities is often not as high as it should be.

Issues to do with formative assessment and feedback are inseparable and the quality of feedback to students is variable. Feedback should be clearly understandable and include positive reinforcement, constructive criticism and pointers about how to improve. Lecturers need to remember that feedback can engender strong emotions that can both motivate and de-motivate. Feedback about how to do better is more important than the mark, since it is the aim of improvement that lies at the heart of formative assessment.

Ultimately, the main aim of assessment is to develop students’ skills to self assess how they are acquiring subject knowledge and skills and applying them. Self-assessment is not happening often enough and needs to be built into programmes from the first year of study, leading to good scholarship skills as well as life-long learning.

The role of individual lecturers in reviewing and implementing different forms of assessment is crucial. Staff should not be afraid to try new types of assessment and need to acknowledge that this involves taking a risk. This also requires staff to recognise when things are not working by being reflective and sharing ideas for improvement. Peer support and mentoring can be invaluable in promoting this, as can open discussion with groups of students. Individual lecturers have considerable freedom to experiment within their responsibility for leading courses. The role of programme, course and year coordinators cannot be over-emphasised in making sure overarching discussions leading to better integration take place. While acknowledging inherent difficulties, the overarching aim has to be the creative management of formative assessment where there is a balance between resource efficiency and educational effectiveness.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their colleagues who helped with this research as well as the Centre for Education in the Built Environment, who sponsored it.