Content uploaded by Carol Evans
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carol Evans on Jul 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Enhancing
Assessment
Feedback Practice
in Higher Education:
©Evans 2016–2020
The EAT Framework
Carol Evans
Appendices
Appendix A1:
Guidance on Assessment Feedback Design x59
Appendix A2:
Effective Assessment Feedback Principles 61
Appendix B:
Lecturer Versions of the EAT Wheel 63
Appendix C:
Student Versions of the EAT Wheel 71
Appendix D:
PhD Versions of the EAT Wheel 77
Appendix E:
Decision-Making Cards 83
Appendix F:
Student Engagement in Assessment Feedback 109
Appendix G:
Principles underpinning Practice checklists 113
G1 Planning Change 115
G2: Overarching Assessment Principles Checklists 116
G3 Quality Assuring Assessment Practices 120
G4 Evidencing Practice 124
Appendix H:
Professional Development; EAT and Fellowships 134
Bibliography 147
Contents
Eat Framework Overview 3
Dimensions of Practice
(Assessment Literacy, Feedback and Design) 6
Meaningful Assessment Practice (MAP) 31
Characteristics of MAP 31
Realisation of MAP in Practice 33
Inclusive Assessment Practices 37
Self-Regulatory Assessment Practices 39
x
Scaling-Up Assessment Feedback Practices 43
Evaluating Assessment Practices 50
Reward and Recognition 52
3EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Enhancing assessment
feedback practice
in higher education:
The EAT Framework
EAT
Framework
Overview
“
To maximise the potential of
pedagogical innovations, assessment is
the lynchpin as it must keep pace with
what disciplinary knowledge is seen as
valuable and relevant within HE and
wider contexts and needs to accurately
measure meaningful learning.
Pedagogies aimed at developing
deeper approaches to learning are
most successful when assessment
practice is aligned to capture and
reward a shared understanding of what
constitutes ‘deep’ within a discipline.
(Evans et al., 2015, p. 64).
”
Evans et al., 2015, p. 64
4EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Equity – Agency – Transparency
Underpinning Principles
of the EAT Framework
There is a substantial body of research on
developing assessment feedback practice
in higher education (Evans, 2013). See
Appendices A1: Guidance on Assessment
Feedback Design, and A2: Effective
Assessment Feedback Principles.
A key issue is how we can effectively use this
information to enhance assessment feedback
practice at all levels within an institution mindful
of the need for high quality research-informed
pedagogy, and the importance of sustainability
and manageability agendas from student and
staff perspectives.
EAT (Evans, 2016) can help to achieve this.
EAT demonstrates a research-informed,
integrated, and holistic approach to
assessment. It has evolved from extensive
research on assessment feedback (Evans,
2013) and use in practice within higher
education institutions (HEIs) (e.g., the
Researching Assessment Practices group
at the University of Southampton).
In sum, EAT has synthesized research from
over 40,000 studies, and evidence-based
institutional practices
EAT (Evans, 2016) is underpinned by a
Personal Learning Styles Pedagogy approach
(PLSP) (Waring & Evans, 2015). At the heart
of EAT is the importance of the following:
(a) Attending to student and lecturer beliefs
about assessment including feedback;
(b) Ensuring the use of appropriate research
informed tools and a holistic approach
to assessment;
(c) Sensitivity to learner context –
the importance of learner agency;
(d) The importance of adaptive learning
environments that support all learners
to become more self-regulatory in
their approaches to learning;
(e) Supporting learner autonomy and
informed choices in learning.
EAT is also informed by the RADAR dimensions
model (Education Quality Enhancement team,
University of Exeter); the Viewpoints project,
(Ulster, 2008–2012); Quality Assurance
Frameworks (e.g., QAA Code, UK; and the
Advance HE framework for transforming
assessment in higher education).
Theoretically, EAT integrates cognitivist, socio-
critical, and socio-cultural perspectives and
draws on systematic analyses of the research
literature involving the interrogation of over
56,000 sources, and 5000 articles in detail.
Making sense of
assessment feedback
in higher education
full download free from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
abs/10.3102/0034654312474350
4EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
5
Socio-cultural theory
emphasis on an individual's ways
of knowing – the learner's
actions and interactions with the
environment
Constructivist theory
emphasis on the social
and cultural basis of
personal experience
The Personal Learning
Styles Pedagogy
A. Exploration of student and teach beliefs/
modelling and support (Importance of
learners’ previous knowledge, beliefs, learning
histories, identity)
B. Careful selection and application of styles
(Emphasis on learning how to learn –
development of metacognitive and
self-regulatory skills and knowledge)
C. Optimising conditions for learning
(Sensitivity to context – situational demands;
promoting access; developing learner flexibility)
D. Design of learning environments
(Using multiple representations of concepts
and information; aligned and authentic
assessment; explicit designs;
network facilitation)
E. Supporting learner autonomy
(Emphasis on developing student voice,
negotiation and sharing of meanings;
issues of power addressed)
Socio-critical theory
emphasis on the technical,
cultural, poststructuralist,
political
active
critical
learner
A
B
C
D
E
Figure 1: Theoretical underpinnings of EAT (Waring & Evans, p. 55)
6EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Overview
Dimensions of Practice
EAT (Evans, 2016) includes three core
dimensions of practice:
Assessment Literacy
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
EAT by drawing on the PLSP (Waring & Evans,
2015), stresses the importance of agency,
collaboration, and sensitivity to the needs of the
context (discipline; programme etc.) to support
the development of strong student-lecturer
partnerships in order to build student self-
regulatory capacity in assessment feedback.
A key consideration as part of this agenda
is ownership:
EAT brings together work on individual learning
differences (PLSP, Waring & Evans, 2015),
self-regulation and agentic engagement.
Self-regulation is embedded in notions of
sustainable assessment (Boud & Molloy, 2013),
how students come to manage learning
for themselves through development
of self-evaluation capacity. Examination
of self-regulation of assessment feedback
How students come to co-own their
programmes with lecturers and see
themselves as active contributors to
the assessment feedback process rather
than seeing assessment as something
that is done to them.
concerns examination of both the process
of self-regulation (goals, planning, monitoring
and evaluation (Zimmerman 1986, 1989),
and analysis of self-regulation constructs
to include the cognitive dimension (how
you process information), the metacognitive
dimensions (understanding how you learn), and
the affective dimension (managing emotions
in learning, linked also to motivation and self-
efficacy) (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Agentic
engagement is concerned with how students
engage with assessment and how they bring
about changes in their learning environment to
support their own learning (Reeve, 2013).
While EAT was not designed as a psychometric
tool, the factor structure of it suggests loading
on three key factors to include engagement,
self-regulation, and assessment literacy.
Individual differences are implicated in the ways
in which individuals manage their learning using
similar and different combinations of strategies
and approaches to manage assessment.
The EAT Framework highlights the importance
of seeing how all elements of curriculum
design work together to impact the efficacy
of feedback. From a semiotics perspective
(Peirce, n.d) EAT is a symbol or a ‘SIGN’
of integrated assessment (the OBJECT);
of fundamental importance is how
colleagues and students make sense
of it (we are the INTERPRETANTS).
6EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
7EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Figure 2: Key constructs underpinning EAT
Self-regulation
Agentic
Engagement
Assessment Design Key Considerations
Individual
Learning
Differences
Design
Note: PLSP and assessment link Evans,
2015: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/
knowledge-hub/personal-learning-
styles-pedagogy
7EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
8EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Figure 3: EAT Reflecting Integrated Assessment from a Semiotics Perspective
Representamen/
Signifier/SIGN
The symbol –
the form
of the sign
Interpretant/Signified
The sense made of the sign
What the sign means to the individual
Referent/Object
What the sign
stands for or
represents
Integrated
Assessment
Importance of considering assessment
literacy, feedback and design as part of
an integrated whole – and from and
inclusive and self-regulatory perspective
9EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Why the need for EAT?
The literature is rich in studies proclaiming a
new paradigm of student engagement with
assessment, and this has been in motion for
at least thirty years. Translation of core ideas
around engagement, self-regulation and student
partnership in practice have been much slower
to take hold in practice given the constraints
of assessment cultures at all levels of inquiry,
and the lack of integration of cognitive and
educational psychology, neuroscientific
perspectives and disciplinary requirements.
The framework critically synthesises a very
broad-based literature base, and attendant
theories and explores pragmatic ways of
addressing assessment in practice.
Scale of Inquiry
EAT can be used to explore assessment
feedback practice at a variety of levels in
order to identify assessment priorities
(individual; discipline; faculty; university)
(See EAT Diagrams Appendices B (educator)
lecturer/teacher and C (student versions).
EAT acknowledges the nested nature of
pedagogy in that assessment practice is
influenced by policy operating at various
levels within and beyond higher education
institutions (HEIs), and that individuals can
also influence higher education and national
policy using research-informed approaches
through an evidence-informed approach.
To enhance assessment feedback practice
it is important to look at the interconnected
nature of all three core dimensions of practice
(i.e., assessment literacy, assessment feedback,
and assessment design). It is, however,
also possible to focus on any specific areas
of assessment feedback that you have
identified as relative weaknesses/priorities
for development, acknowledging the fact
that activity and development in one area
will impact on other areas of EAT.
10 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
EAT (Evans, 2016) is fundamentally about
promoting self-regulatory practice in
assessment, and asks the key question: ‘What
does student engagement in assessment and
feedback look like?’ To address this question,
there is a student and lecturer version of
EAT framed from each of their perspectives.
The student version explores how students
can be active co-owners of the assessment
feedback process drawing on Evans (2015a)
identification of ‘savvy feedback seekers’
who shared the following characteristics:
(a) focus on meaning making;
(b) self-management skills;
(c) perspective;
(d) noticing;
(e) resilience;
(f) managing personal response to feedback;
(g) pro-active feedback-seeking behaviour;
(h) adaptability, and
(i) forward thinking.
Appendix C enables students to self-assess
how they are attending to each of the
areas highlighted in EAT as part of trying to
understand and develop their own role(s)
in assessment feedback practice.
Principles underpinning Practice
at all Levels
Central to the EAT Framework is consideration
of beliefs and values underpinning assessment
practices and how shared understanding of
these is developed. The EAT Framework looks
at Principles at three levels:
Overarching Principles Underpinning
Practice (see Appendix G2)
Principles applied to Quality Assurance of
Assessment and Feedback (Appendix G3)
Implementation of Assessment Feedback
Principles on the ground (Appendix A)
Figure 4: Underpinning EAT Principles
Principles Underpinning Practice: Integrated Approach
Shared beliefs and values
Student-staff partnership
Inclusive
Sensitive to context
Holistic
Integrative
Agentic
Engagement in meaningful
learning experiences – relevant
Sustainable
Research-informed
Underpinning EAT Principles
11 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Research-informed
Being able to apply research/scholarship to
practice in a way that is meaningful, relevant,
and sustainable, and being able to use what
has been learnt from practice to further inform
learning, teaching and research.
A concern with how we evaluate the quality
of what we doing in a dynamic way. What
evidence can we draw on at the micro level to
explore the process and not just the outcomes
of assessment feedback practices? Is the time
we are spending on a specific assessment
activity justified?
It means tacking the Biesta (2010) question
head on – measuring what we value rather
than valuing what is easy to measure. It means
resisting gaming metrics to instead focus on
meaningful learning. The Moore et al. (2015)
framework for managing complex interventions
provides a useful steer in considering:
Fidelity of assessment approaches –
how true they are to intended plans,
Dose (how much is needed) to effect
positive change,
Significance (the scale of the difference
made and for whom,
Its reach – has it been successful with
the target population.
In considering scaleability, we also need to
consider how embedded ideas have become
within institutional structures and processes,
their sustainability and transferability within
and across contexts.
Inclusivity
We need to constantly explore whether any
learner is being excluded from assessment (a
critical pedagogy) and ensure that all learners
have access to learning environments drawing
on a universal design perspective. Ensuring that
our practice provides all students and staff with
equal access to learning in respecting diversity,
enabling participation, working with students
and staff to remove barriers, cognisant of
individual learning differences.
Self-regulatory
How are we supporting learners to manage
their own learning, and what does self-
regulation mean? The Eldorado of assessment
is for learners to be able to accurately measure
the quality of their work for themselves; this
requires attending to cognitive, metacognitive
and emotional dimensions of learning. It also
requires understanding of how individuals
can be supported to maximise the affordances
from an environment and to understand that
self-regulation does not mean self-reliance.
Student-staff partnership
How do students and staff perceive their roles
in assessment feedback? What tensions may
exist? Are goals openly discussed and role
boundaries agreed and made explicit?
Shared beliefs and values
Can you articulate clear principles underpinning
your practice? Is there open discussion,
and development of principles that all
stakeholders can buy into?
Underpinning EAT Principles continued
12 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Promoting student and staff agency
This is about ownership and supporting this
from indvidual and organisational perspectives.
How can we ensure that assessment policies
do not straitjacket assessment practices?
Sensitive to context
This includes factors pertaining to the individual
and how the assessment environment operates.
How do we ensure sensitivity to how learners
experience assessment and support individuals
to manage themselves in context (to notice
cues to support learning; engage in networks
to support learning; the inferences and
meanings of disciplinary cultures). This also
requires acknowledgement understanding that
of the fact that individuals’ perceptions of an
assessment environment are varied, they are
context related, and subject to change.
Engagement in meaningful
learning experiences
How are we supporting students to engage
deeply in their learning through careful
consideration of the key learning attributes
we are supporting students in developing.
How are such attributes best tested to enable
students to be able to show their depth of
understanding? Are the assessment tasks
we set relevant and authentic. (See section:
on Meaningful Practice Considerations).
Integrative
Integrated assessment means consideration of
the relationship of all elements of assessment.
It also highlights the importance of an approach
where the aim is to support students in being
‘able to make connections across learning
experiences and achieve learning at the
highest cognitive level’ (Durrant & Hartman,
2014, p.1).
Holistic
Involves consideration of the whole experience
of the learner within a programme and beyond
the discipline. To achieve this we need to be
sensitive to individual and contextual variables
impacting learning.
Sustainable
From a pedagogical perspective this is about
supporting learners through their development
of self-regulation capacity to manage their
learning throughout their lives; accurate self-
assessment is central to this. It is also about
manageability and best use of resource. From a
personal perspective, it is also about deliberate
practice; being discriminatory in when and
where to invest efforts.
Critical approach
Is about considering the impact of assessment
and feedback practices on students and
colleagues, and our ability to engage in ongoing
development and critical evaluation of our own
practice and that of others.
Underpinning EAT Principles continued
13 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Each of EAT’s three core dimensions of practice
have four sub-dimensions; making 12 sub-
dimensions in practice. Each of these twelve
sub-dimensions have been presented in the
form of a decision-making card which identifies
overarching questions to be considered when
developing assessment feedback practice as
part of EAT.
Dimensions of Practice: Key considerations
The questions/suggestions are by no means
exhaustive but they provide a guide as to
some of the key aspects that need to be
considered when implementing developments
in assessment and feedback practices
(See Appendix E: Decision-Making Cards
for each of the 12 sub-dimensions of EAT).
14 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Assessment Literacy (AL)
In order for learners to be able to fully engage in
their learning in higher education, they need to
have a good understanding of the requirements
of assessment. These requirements need to
be clear to both students and lecturers. Such
understanding is helped if there are clear
principles underpinning assessment practice
that are shared and owned by all. Some have
argued that such an emphasis on assessment
literacy can lead to ‘criteria compliance’,
Torrance, 2007,2012), however, without
access to the language and rules of assessment
much time is wasted by students and lecturers
on lower level concerns rather than on what
really matters in learning. Engaging students
with assessment criteria by involving them
in: assessing each other’s work, refining
criteria to align with requirements of a specific
assessment task, and supporting programme
level development of assessment criteria are
all helpful activities in enabling students to get
a deeper understanding of the requirements
of assessment.
Key questions include:
How are learners encouraged to articulate
their beliefs, understandings, opinions,
and motives in assessment feedback?
(see Clark, 2012)
How are we providing learners with
opportunities to be able to calibrate
standards for themselves?
AL1 Clarify what constitutes good
Building on the work of Ramaprasad (1989)
and Sadler (1989) about the role of feedback
in bridging the gap between a student’s current
and ideal level of performance, an individual
needs to have a clear understanding of
what good is, and the different ways of
achieving good.
Key questions include:
Do module/programme teams have
a shared understanding of what constitutes
‘good’ and how you achieve this
shared understanding?
How do we bridge student and lecturer
learning goals?
AL 2 Clarify how assessment
elements fit together
It is important that students are able to self-
manage the requirements of assessment and
part of this is being clear about how the overall
assessment design fits together. It is essential
for students to map what they think the
assessment design is, and to agree, confirm,
and revisit how all elements of assessment
fit together with the support of lecturers at
regular intervals. It is highly probable that
individuals (students and lecturers) will perceive
assessment and feedback guidance and design
in different ways.
15 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
A key question is how is a shared
understanding of how all aspects of assessment
fit together achieved? Time devoted to this at
the start of a programme is invaluable.
An agreed blueprint of key assessment tasks,
progression points, and feedback mechanisms
needs to be shared and owned by student
and lecturer teams.
We also need to consider the programme as
a whole and what the entirety of the learning
journey looks like, and also consider the extent
to which the pattern of assessment supports
and also may constrain learning and teaching.
AL 3 Clarify student and staff entitlement
In supporting students to self-manage their
assessment journeys it is important to make
it clear what support is available and when.
What are the boundaries regarding support
and what is the student role in this process?
Feedback should be seen as a highly valuable
and rationed resource, and students should be
supported to make best use of the opportunities
available to them; this requires careful
preparation and management of timelines
and professional protocols in order to get
the best out of feedback.
Assessment Literacy (AL) continued
The student role in supporting the learning
process as active feedback givers as well as
receivers of feedback should be stressed.
Module and programme leads need to agree
and clarify with students from the outset what
student engagement in assessment involves
and what the protocols are.
AL 4 Clarify the requirements
of the discipline
To support student retention and successful
learning outcomes, students need to be able to
identify with, and meet the requirements of their
specific disciplines (Bluic et al., 2011); they
need to feel part of the disciplinary community.
It is important for teams to agree and clarify
with students what the core concepts and
threshold concepts (those that may prove
difficult) within a discipline are, and what are
the most appropriate strategies to support
their understanding of these difficult concepts,
and to also assess them. The need to define
what constitutes a ‘deep approach’ within the
discipline is of paramount importance along
with approaches to induct students into the
discipline, and to clarify with students what
the signature pedagogy of the discipline is.
16 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Assessment Feedback (AF)
Assessment feedback comprises ‘all feedback
exchanges generated within assessment
design, occurring within and beyond the
immediate learning context, being overt or
covert (actively and/or passively sought and/or
received) and, importantly, drawing from
a range of sources’ (Evans, 2013, p. 71).
The emphasis of feedback should be on
supporting learners to drive feedback for
themselves. To address ‘the feedback gap’
it is important to get students to clarify their
understandings of feedback and for them
to ascertain where the problem lies (e.g.,
lack of knowledge; lack of preparation;
misunderstanding of the process and/or
requirements) (See Sadler, 2010).
When we receive feedback we often interpret it
at the personal level rather than at the task level
(see Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). In considering
the emotions of feedback, allowing sufficient
time between students receiving results and
feedback on work, and follow up discussions
regarding the next steps in developing work
is very important in order to enable students
to fully process the feedback given, and to
be ready to take advice on how to proceed.
Engaging students to lead on feedback should
be a priority; this requires students to do the
necessary preparatory work so that they can
make the most of feedback opportunities
(e.g., encouraging students to pitch a proposal
for an assignment; to ask specific questions
as part of their formative work; to take the lead
in tutorials and seminars regarding what they
would like feedback on). In order for students
to develop and maintain motivation they need
to believe that their efforts will lead to success.
A key question is how are learning environments
supporting students’ perceptions of self-
efficacy? This is an important ingredient
in the development of students’ self-
management skills.
In addressing the four assessment feedback
sub-dimensions of EAT, the role of
individual differences is important. Students’
understanding of feedback and their capacity
to act on it depends on their beliefs, motives,
and established schema; feedback needs to
tackle these areas early on to ensure students’
psychological development is synchronised
with other aspects of their self-regulatory
development, and so that appropriate addition
and removal of scaffolding can be applied.
Feedback needs to have a dual function in
meeting students’ immediate assessment needs
and in gesturing to the knowledge
skills and dispositions they require beyond
the module/ programme as part of lifelong
learning (see Boud, 2000; Hounsell, 2007).
17 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Student Assessment Sat Navs: As architects
of assessment, how do lecturers create
learning environments that give students
maximum access, but importantly, support
students to manage their own learning?
“
The focus needs to shift away from the
narrow issue of how feedback can be
improved and communicated, and
towards the wider issue of how
assessment (rather than feedback)
can enhance student learning... any
assumption that feedback must remain
the primary assessment related tool
inhibits opening up the agenda.
”
Sadler, 2013, p. 56
This definition places emphasis on how
assessment is designed to maximise
opportunities for learning. Consideration of
how students can be co-opted into supporting
the development of such opportunities,
so as to maximise their learning still requires
a substantial shift in thinking.
The Feedback Conundrum
Feedback cannot be discussed in isolation from
assessment design as it is assessment design
that is key to managing the efficacy of feedback
in context. A central question is: How do we
maximise feedback exchanges for staff and
students acknowledging that lecturer feedback
is but one element of the feedback process?
Mapping of the assessment design is needed
to make clear what assessment feedback
opportunities there are, and who is leading
on them student and/or lecturer.
In facilitating feedback exchange emphasis
must be on how assessment is designed to
maximise opportunities for students to come to
understand requirements for themselves without
being dependent on external feedback in order
to be able to accurately judge the quality of
their own learning (Boud & Molloy, 2013).
Assessment Feedback (AF) continued
18 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AF 1 Provide accessible feedback
Keeping assessment focused with an
emphasis on how to improve is important
(e.g., What was good? What let you down?
How can you improve?). Agreeing key
principles underpinning assessment feedback
and consistency in the giving of feedback are
essential (Evans, 2013 – see Appendix A2).
Of key importance is considering what the
best method is to give feedback in relation to
the nature of the task. More adapted forms of
feedback are made possible through use of
artificial intelligence to provide feedback and
resources matched to the learner level and
to provide invaluable information on the
learning process.
AF 2 Provide early opportunities for
students to act on feedback
In order to support students to help
themselves, early assessment of needs is
important. Emphasis should be on providing
early opportunities for students to receive
feedback on key areas of practice while
there is sufficient time for them to use such
feedback to enhance their work; assessment
design must take account of this. Furthermore,
formative feedback must directly link into the
requirements of summative assessment as
part of an aligned approach. Repeated testing
has been shown to have significant impact on
student learning outcomes (Heeneman et al.,
2017;, McCann, 2017; Sennhenn-Kirchner,
et al., 2017).
AF 3 Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
Peer engagement activities are important
in promoting student self-regulatory skills.
The term ‘peer engagement’ focuses on student
collaboration, confidence, and autonomy
(Cowan & Creme, 2005) and predominantly
comprises formative support as opposed to
summative peer assessment.
Clarifying student responsibility within peer
engagement models is important; this requires
clarity regarding student expectations with
peer engagement designs, and student access
to resources to ensure full preparation for
meaningful rather than meaningless dialogue.
A key question is how are you mobilising
students to effectively contribute to the
design and delivery of programmes as
genuine partners?
AF 4 Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills to include
self-monitoring/self-assessment
and critical reflection skills.
For feedback to be sustainable, students need
to be supported in their self-monitoring (in the
moment) and self-assessment (aggregation of
information from multiple past events of their
work), independently of the lecturer/teacher
(cf. Carless et al., 2011). (For clarification
on self-monitoring and self-assessment see
Eva and Regehr (2011)).
Assessment Feedback (AF) continued
19 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Curriculum design is important in ‘creating
opportunities for students to develop the
capabilities to operate as judges of their own
learning’ (Boud & Molloy, 2013, p. 698). A key
question is how are we engaging students in
co-judging their work with lecturers?
The importance of developing students’
self-monitoring skills cuts across all 12
sub-dimensions of EAT. Self-assessment is
fundamental to the self-regulation of learning
(see Archer, 2010). Opportunities for students
to assess their own work and that of others
are important in enabling students to develop
self-assessment capacity. Supporting students
to find their own resources and networks
to support their understanding, the use of
modelling of approaches, and use of tools to
explicitly demonstrate different ways of thinking
are all important in supporting students in this
endeavour. In order for students to critically
reflect on their learning it is important to
consider how their reflexivity can be developed
through support structures (e.g., student
support groups; direction to new sources of
information; ensuring sufficient challenge so
that students have to re/consider their
approaches to learning).
Assessment Feedback (AF) continued
“
It is possible to identify key elements
of effective peer feedback designs...
These elements include the importance
of setting an appropriate climate for the
development of peer feedback practice,
acknowledging the role of the student
in the process, ensuring authentic use
of peer feedback, the need for explicit
guidance on what constitutes effective
feedback practice, encouraging
students to critically reflect on their
own giving and receiving of feedback,
and addressing ongoing student and
lecturer training needs. A key question
for educators is how to maximise the
affordances of peer feedback designs
while at the same time minimise
potential constraints for learners
”
Evans, 2015b, pp.121–122
20 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
(See Chapter 10 – Making sense
of critical reflection in M. Waring.,
& C. Evans (2015).
Understanding pedagogy: Developing
a critical approach to teaching and
learning (pp. 161–186). Abingdon,
Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge
In considering feedback dynamics and building
on the Feedback Landscape (Evans, 2013),
there are many variables impacting how
students make sense of feedback, and we
need to have a better understanding of
those key variables if we are to maximise
the effectiveness of assessment feedback
(Evans &Waring, 2019).
These include:
In Figure 4, the factors implicated in impacting
students’ engagement with assessment
feedback and student learning outcomes are
highlighted integrating individual and contextual
variables. The importance of beliefs and values
in impacting assessment feedback behaviours
is central to the EAT Framework as part of
examining the cognitive, metacognitive
and emotional factors and predispositions
impacting how a learner engages with a
learning environment.
Goals play a central part in impacting
behaviours, and supporting students in
developing appropriate goals and monitoring
activities to check activities are aligned with
goals is essential.
On the environmental side of the equation, it is
known that self-regulation strategies of learners
can be enhanced through appropriate training
and support which also includes removal of
scaffolding, and that development of such skills
can negate the influence of individual difference
factors on achievement. One of the biggest
threats to self-regulation is the over-scaffolding
of learning which HE environments need to
be mindful of when planning transitional
learning support activities for students.
Ensuring that curriculum design fully supports
the development of self-regulatory capacity
requires time for teams to create programme
blue prints of the core knowledge and skills’
development that are required by students,
and the best ways to support them in
developing the metacognitive
competencies required.
Assessment Feedback (AF) continued
Experience of self-regulation
approaches
Competence in the use of
self-regulation approaches
Awareness of /commitment to,
inclusive assessment and individual
learning differences
21
Figure 5: Evans, C. & Waring, M. (forthcoming). “Enhancing Students’ Assessment Feedback Skills within Higher Education.”
Educational Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Assessment
feedback
skills
Individual
student
Cognitive Abilities
and Dispositions
Working memory capacity/
cognitive load
Heuristics – schema
Cognitive styles & meta-style
flexibility
Personality
Constructs
Openness
Need for cognition/metacognition
Attainment Prior achievement
Experience of success
Conscientiousness
Valuing a task
Future time perspective
Perceptions of future selves
Minimum grade goal
Learning and performance
goal orientations
Locus of control
Positive outcome expectations
Conceptions of learning and teaching
Learning dispositions
Motivation
Beliefs about Ability General/academic self-efficacy
Self-concept
Belief that human attributes
are malleable
Regulation Abilities Metacognitive/cognitive/
affective abilities
Agentic engagement: mobilisation
and use of environmental resources
– co-shared regulation
Beliefs about
Learning
Belief that knowledge can
be developed
Belief that assessment feedback can
support improvements in learning
Individual
differences
Social class
Ethnicity
Gender
social, cultural and
political capital
Assessment
context
Instructional
Clarity
Instruction approaches and
their purposes
Goals
Success criteria
Fairness
Authenticity
Roles
Purposes of assessment feedback
Promotion of assessment literacy
On-going practice in self-assessment
Multiple opportunities for students
to test their understanding –
repeated testing
Training in self- and peer assessment
Emphasis on emotional regulation skills
Training in critical reflection
Observation, modelling and immersion
in self-regulatory approaches and
focused feedback
Ensuring assessment tasks promote
the use and application of high level
self-regulatory skills
Meaningful and challenging assessment
Network development
Metacognitive,
Cognitive
and Emotional
Regulation
Strategy
Instruction
The HE Field/
Discipline
Cultural toolkits and ways of knowing
Beliefs about the relevance, utility,
and importance of self-regulation
Attitude toward agentic assessment
Lecturer
Perceptions
Lecturer
Characteristics
and prior
experiences
22 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Assessment Design (AD)
A holistic approach to assessment design is
needed in order to address central issues
such as: (i) the relevance of assessment;
(ii) volume of assessment; (iii) inclusive nature
of assessment; and (iv) collaborative design of
assessment to ensure shared understandings,
sustainability, and manageability. A fundamental
question is how can technology support the
operationalisation of EAT and the development
of each of the 12 sub-dimensions?
A programme level assessment approach is
useful to fully consider the learning journey
of the student and to critically review what
we need to assess and how. In implementing
innovative assessment design we need to
consider the evidence-base for using specific
approaches especially if we are expecting
colleagues and students to ‘buy in’ to an
approach; what is the evidence base to support
such change? A critical pedagogies approach
is essential in ensuring inclusive practices
through exploring who may be advantaged
and disadvantaged by changes to assessment
and feedback. A key question is how does
curriculum design support the development
of self-efficacious self-regulatory learners?
‘Bang for buck’ is important for pedagogical
and viability reasons. It is useful to consider
what changes in assessment practice make
the biggest difference in relation to the impact
on student learning outcomes in the immediate
and longer terms, and the level of investment
required to effect such changes.
It is possible to develop positive assessment
habits by looking for small improvements in
each of the 12 sub-dimensions of EAT building
on Brailsford’s notion of marginal gains used so
effectively by the UK Cycling team – Team GB
in the 2012 Olympics. Put simply by Brailsford
it is about the: ‘aggregation of marginal gains...
The one percent margin for improvement in
everything that you do.’ The argument is that
the sum of small incremental improvements can
lead to significant improvements when they are
all added together. In Evans’ et al. (2015) it was
also noted that some relatively small changes
in assessment practice had the potential
for significant changes to both students’
perceptions of the learning environment
and to learning outcomes.
23 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AD1 Ensure robust and transparent
processes and procedures;
QA literacy
To innovate with confidence we need a good
understanding of quality assurance, hence
the emphasis in the framework on developing
lecturer QA literacy. QA literacy gives us the
freedom to implement new approaches to
assessment in an informed and responsible way
and to cut through prevailing misconceptions
and hurdles regarding what we can and
cannot do. Within modules and programmes
an understanding of QA literacy is not the
preserve of one person; it is the responsibility
of the whole team in developing collaborative
assessment designs. As part of this: to what
extent is training provided for lecturer teams
to support calibration of standards (Sadler,
2017)? Furthermore, to what extent are
students and lecturers clear about marking
and moderation processes?
Assessment Design (AD) continued
“
We need to… bridge the classroom
with life outside of it. The connection
between integrative thinking, or
experiential learning, and the social
network, or participatory culture,
is no longer peripheral to our
enterprise but is the nexus that should
guide and reshape our curricula in the
current disruptive moment in higher
education learning.
”
Das, 2012, p. 32
24 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Assessment Design (AD) continued
[students] are relational agents, with
tremendous demands on their time and
attention, and must make choices about
where to focus their energies and attention
most efficiently... at both conscious and
unconscious levels, their brains are engaging
in a continuous process of triaging for the
allocation of finite neural resources.
AD 2 Promote meaningful
and focused assessment
The importance of engaging students in
‘real assessment’ working on real problems
that are relevant to their future careers and in
real contexts is important (Bedard et al., 2012;
Crowl et al., 2013; Erekson, 2011; Patterson
et al., 2011). Paraphrasing Friedlander et al.
(2011, pp. 416–417) in their discussion of
medical students priorities, it is important
for us to carefully consider the rationale
underpinning what we asking students
to do, and its relevance to their current
and future needs:
Manageability of assessment for lecturers and
students is also a key concern and one that
can be addressed through a programme level
approach to the review and rationalisation of
learning outcomes and patterns of assessment
to ensure the assessment design works as a
coherent whole and that colleagues understand
where their modules fit within the programme.
Bass (2012) highlights the importance of
team-based design of learning environments to
ensure shared understandings, collaboration,
and integration of ideas across modules.
25 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AD 3 Ensure access and
equal opportunities
A key aim of assessment design is to ensure
that no learner is disadvantaged by the nature
and pattern of assessment. A totally unlimited
choice available to students within assessment
design may penalise those whose self-
regulatory abilities are not as well developed.
EAT emphasises the importance of negotiated
and managed choice with students working
with lecturers to agree options.
The concept of universal design is applicable
to the design of assessment and feedback
in promoting adaptive assessment designs
that enable access for all learners rather than
focusing on adapted designs to suit the needs
of specific groups (Evans et al., 2015; Waring
& Evans, 2015). Computer technologies and
AI already offer considerable opportunities to
support adapted designs but require strong
pedagogy underpinning them and data analysis
skills to pull out the complex relationships
between variables.
Ensuring early and full provision of resources
is one way to promote access to learning.
Supporting students to develop strong
resource networks (e.g., appropriate sources
of information; relevant research/discipline
groups; peer groups etc.) are additional ways to
address the impoverished networks that some
students have which limit their access
to learning.
Assessment Design (AD) continued
26 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AD 4 Ensure ongoing evaluation to support
the development of sustainable
assessment and feedback practice
Feedback needs to be organic to feed in
to enhancements in learning and teaching.
Students and lecturers need to work in
partnership to inform teaching on an iterative
basis. Feedback mechanisms need to be an
integral part of curriculum design. Feedback
should be part of the ongoing dialogue within
taught sessions on what can and cannot be
changed to enhance practice and why. It is
about clear communication about why learning
and teaching is designed and delivered in a
particular way; this is definitely not about solely
complying with student requests; it is about
justifying the underpinning rationale for why
the teaching design is as it is, and what
is reasonable and not reasonable to change
and why.
Feedback should not be overcomplicated;
a ‘what was good’ and ‘what could be
improved’ serves an important purpose in
gaining immediate feedback. Students need
guidance regarding ‘feedback capture’. More
detailed feedback questionnaires also need to
be aligned to what the assessment feedback
priorities are in order to catch relevant and
focused information where necessary.
A key issue is how feedback is shared among
lecturers to promote the exchange of good
practice for the benefit of the whole programme
during the teaching cycle as well as after it
as part of annual programme review.
In summary, EAT is an example of an integrative
assessment framework that can support small-
scale and large-scale assessment and feedback
change. Key emphases include self-regulatory
development; student and lecturer ownership
and co-ownership of programmes; collaborative
endeavour; all underpinned by an inclusive
pedagogical approach (PLSP) with a critical
pedagogic stance.
Assessment Design (AD) continued
27 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Using EAT in Practice
The Framework can be used with individuals
(students and lecturers) and with teams.
As a diagnostic tool to evaluate strengths
and weaknesses at individual and team/
organisational levels.
As a design tool to hone in on the
development of one area of practice
e.g., feedback and consider what needs
to happen in all 12 areas of practice.
As a predictive tool to explore
relationships between student
engagement and outcomes.
As an evaluative tool to evaluate the
relative effectiveness of assessment
feedback practices.
As a training tool to support student
and lecturer skills’ development.
For each of the 3 dimensions and 12 sub-
dimensions of the EAT framework in total,
it is possible to ask students to score their
own contribution (1 = do very little to 5 =
do as much as possible). It is then possible
to identify each students’ own EAT footprint.
The key question here is to why students
choose to engage or not in assessment
and feedback practices which includes
a consideration of the extent to which a
programme/module enables them to engage
fully. A discussion of facilitators and barriers
to engagement in assessment and feedback
from institutional and personal perspectives is
important in moving practice forward. Using
the lecturer /student version it is also possible
for lecturers to overlay their profiles within
and between modules to account for areas of
difference and to look at strengths and areas
to develop. Students can also overlay their
interpretation of the teaching within a module/
programme with that of the lecturer’s to identify
points of agreement and difference.
29
Figure 6: Using EAT Student Profiles
AL1: What constitutes good?
What am I aiming for? Do I know what good looks
like? Do I know what to do to meet the assessment
criteria and learning outcomes.
AL2: How assessment elements fit together
Have I mapped how the assessment works in/across
modules, and how I am going to manage them all?
AL3: Student and staff entitlement
Do I know what: feedback looks like; support I am
entitles to; my role in feedback is?
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements
of the discipline?
Am I aware of the key concepts I need to know and
the main ways of working and thinking in my discipline?
Do I feel part of the discipline?
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Using formative feedback opportunities
Am I actively seeking out feedback
opportunities and making full use of them?
AF3: Have I done the necessary preparation
to participate fully in peer dialogue?
How do I support others in giving and
receiving feedback?
AF1: Ensuring I know how to improve
Do I know how to improve my work from the
feedback? If it is not clear, what am I doing
about it?
AF4: Self-evaluation
Do I know how I am doing? Do I know what to
do when I do not know? Am I managing my
learning effectively?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1: Do I have a good understanding of HE
assessment processes /and regulations
AD2: Meaningful work
Am I using the knowledge acquired across modules
to inform my overall development? Am I adopting a
deep approach in my work?
AD3: Making the best use of resources
Do I know how to access and make best use of
resources? Am I developing networks to support
my learning now and into employment?
AD4: Supporting the development of the course
Am I giving useful feedback on how to enhance
assessment feedback practice? How am I owning
the course?
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Single Mapping of Engagement with Assessment Student Version
30
Figure 7: Using EAT Lecturer Profiles
AL1: Clarify what constitutes good
Standard of work; recognition and application of
good academic practice; student and lecturer beliefs.
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements fit together
AL3: Clarify student and staff entitlement
Student/Lecturer roles and principles underpinning
the ‘What’, ‘When’,and ‘How’ of feedback.
AL4: Clarify the requirements of the discipline
Core and threshold concepts; deep approach.
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback
The pattern and timing of assessment, and
alignment of formative to summative assessment.
AF3: Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
Specific, and focused on how to improve.
Encourage students to clarify their interpretation
of the feedback.
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Self-monitoring, self-assessment and
critical reflection.
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1: Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures
QA literacy.
AD2: Promote meaningful and focused assessment
Fit for Purpose; Relevant Programme Level
Assessment; Collaborative Design; Manageable.
AD3: Ensure access and equal opportunities
Provision of Resources; Guidance; Network
Development; Choice.
AD4: Ensure ongoing evaluation to support the
development of sustainable assessment and
feedback practice
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Multiple Mapping of Engagement with Assessment Lecturer Version
31 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Meaningful Assessment
Practices
Key considerations in developing
meaningful assessment practices
are highlighted in EAT
Agreeing Assessment Feedback
Principles: (See Appendix A2)
See Effective Assessment Design
(see Appendices A1)
Inclusive Assessment
Self-regulation
Student Partnership Approaches:
How we design assessment feedback to
encourage engagement (see Appendix F)
Supporting Student Reflection
on Practice
Characteristics of meaningful
assessment practices
In emphasising meaningful assessment
feedback practices the importance of students’
abilities to be able to use, apply, adapt and
create new knowledge are accented. As
noted by Sadler (2013), students need to be
proficient in three key areas and have to be
able to: have a good understanding of quality
and identify it when they see it; judge the
quality of their own work, their strengths and
weaknesses; know what strategies to use to
improve the quality of their work (Sadler, 1989).
Meaningful learning is much more than
students being better users of lecturer
feedback. It requires a holistic, co-ordinated
and integrated approach that frames genuine
paradigmatical shift. It is about students’
noticing and valuing the range of
opportunities available both internal
and external to themselves:
Generating feedback for themselves,
understanding the role of inner feedback
processes as part of monitoring and evaluation
components of self-regulation (Nicol, Thomson,
& Breslin, 2014; Sadler 2013), constructing
meaning for themselves (which should reduce
the need for external feedback); co-constructing
knowledge involving genuine dialogue and not
a one-way conversation.
It is, therefore, also about power and the
conflicting roles of lecturers as facilitators
and assessors. Sustainability, in emphasising
the role of the student in the assessment
process and the changing role for the lecturer
in facilitating student agency in managing their
own feedback are important. Ensuring best use
of resource, and questioning what the learner
and lecturer should be attending to most are
also critical as part of an integrated approach.
(See Appendix F for approaches to engaging
students in assessment)
31 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
32 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Vehicles to support students’ in constructing
meanings for themselves include:
Personalising and creating their own criteria
for each piece of work (Taras, 2015).
Being trained in using, triangulating and
making sense of feedback to include
the emotional dimension of feedback
(Evans, 2013; Forsythe & Johnson, 2017).
Reviewing work of varying quality to support
student understanding of quality,
and seeing quality can be achieved in
different ways (Sadler, 2010, 2013).
Acting as reviewers of others
(Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014).
Self-assessing and feeding back to others
as part of summative assessment and
evaluative processes (Boud, 2000; Boud
et al. 2013; Carless, 2012; Deeley, 2014).
Working with assessment to do the noticing,
the thinking about repair and modification,
and the generation of ways to improve’
as defined by Sadler (2013, p. 57)
as ‘knowing to’.
Co-constructing habitus in working with
lectures as part of signature pedagogies
in generating dispositions to act and
perceive in the discipline (Gray, 2013;
Yu & Hu, 2017).
Genuine collaborative partnership and
discussion between student and lecturer and
emphasis on students leading discussions
(Feedback Landscape, Evans,2013;
Dialogic – Carless et al., 2011).
Working as co-producers with the
wider community in boundary-crossing,
integrative, and socially networked
experiences, as part of the pedagogy
of the real (Garcia, 2014) that bridge
HE experiences with life outside of it
(Bass, 2012; Evans, 2013).
Designing assessment with lecturers
(Riley, 2017; Riley, McCabe, & Pirie, 2017).
Teaching and researching with peers and
lecturers (Scott, Moxham, & Rutherford,
2013; Evans et. al., 2017).
32 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
33 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
At present much assessment aimed at
being transformational falls short because of
entrenched personal and collective beliefs
which encourage adherence to an existing
organisational paradigm (Harrison et al., 2017;
Taras, 2015) despite claims of paradigm shift.
If we want to transform assessment by
promoting student ownership of it, we need
to start by addressing student and lecturere
beliefs and values which impact individual
and organisational behaviours.
To facilitate effective learning communities,
organisational and individual beliefs need to
be aligned. Beliefs and conceptions about
the nature of knowledge frame how learning
experiences are designed and how they are
interpreted leading to entrenchment on both
sides. To support sustainable assessment
practices, that build students’ self-regulatory
capacity and particularly their self-evaluative
judgement, much more attention needs to
be focused on the development of shared
principles underpinning assessment design
(Evans, EAT, 2016). Seeking congruence in
student and lecturer beliefs and values has
to be a priority if students and lecturers are to
work in partnership in developing valuable and
manageable assessment opportunities.
Realisation of Meaningful Assessment
Approaches in Practice
In investing in change we have to be able to do
more than hope that colleagues and students
will be receptive; the rationale underpinning the
assessment design needs to be transparent
to all, and alternative approaches and ways of
being modelled and supported. In engaging
students actively in assessment, we need to be
very careful that we do not fall into the trap of
engaging students and lecturers in ‘waste of
time’ activities. We need a clear understanding
of what facilitates students’ and lecturers
‘knowing to’, and what is a distraction from
this core purpose.
Central to this debate is an awareness of
individual differences, and an understanding
that learners will use strategies in different
ways. Individual and situational constructs
need to be factored into assessment design
as solutions need to be found at the local
level and supported by institutional clarity and
openness to explore and evaluate assessment
at all levels within an organisation as to what is
working well and for whom.
Table 1 identifies examples of strategies
that have been successful in reducing
student differential learning outcomes through
a focus on supporting students’ self-regulatory
capacity through assessment design
(Evans et al., 2019).
34 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Table 1 Effectiveness Factors in using EAT
EAT Principles EAT areas Elements evident in successful case studies
a. shared beliefs and values
between academics and students
b. student-academic partnership
c. inclusivity from universal design
perspectives
d. sensitivity to context
e. holistic – experience of the student
learning journey in its entirety
f. integrative – interconnected
g. agentic in promoting student and
academic ownership of assessment
h. meaningful learning experiences
i. sustainable
j. evidence-based
Literacy AL1 Involvement of students in the development of assessment criteria
Explanation of the rationale underpinning the assessment criteria
and facilitating students to work with these to refine and develop
at the level of the task
Lecturers going beyond looking at transparency to questioning the
relevance and validity of the criteria and tasks themselves (AD2)
Literacy AL2 Making clear how all elements of a programme fitted together
and how the assessments were linked for staff and students
Getting students to walk through the programme and to map
their own journeys and potential crunch points
Team development of programmes (AD2) to critically examine
the placement and nature of different assessments and how
these map to learning outcomes
Literacy AL3 Being explicit about what partnership means and what entitlement is
– how much support and when. In navigating the rules of
engagement, what is black and white and what is grey
Clarifying with students at point of entry what is expected from them
in terms of their contribution to programme development, attendance,
supporting other students etc
Literacy AL4 Clarifying what the core and threshold concepts are and agreeing
these as a team
Identifying any specific skills gaps in the transition from school to HEI
at the discipline level
Undertaking a skills and knowledge audit/base line testing at point of
entry for students
Agreeing a ‘common language’ for the discipline and making this
accessible to students
Focusing on relational dimensions in building a discipline-specific
community with students
Table 1: Effectiveness Factors in using EAT (Evans et al., 2019. Maximising Student Success
OfS project, p. 83–85)
35 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
EAT Principles EAT areas Elements evident in successful case studies
a. shared beliefs and values
between academics and students
b. student-academic partnership
c. inclusivity from universal design
perspectives
d. sensitivity to context
e. holistic – experience of the student
learning journey in its entirety
f. integrative – interconnected
g. agentic in promoting student and
academic ownership of assessment
h. meaningful learning experiences
i. sustainable
j. evidence-based
Feedback AF1 Focusing feedback on what was good, what let you down and
how to improve – rationalising feedback to focus on the most
important points
Staff and students working together to clarify what feedback is,
how to seek, give and use it
Situating feedback where it can have most impact (AD2)
Agreeing clear baselines for the quality of feedback, ensuring quality
and moderating quality.
Feedback AF2 Making sure students have many opportunities to test their
understanding from point of entry into university – with students also
leading on providing such opportunities (AD2)
Ensuring that the formative feedback directly supported summative
outputs (AD2)
Supporting student reflection on feedback but with an emphasis on
goal setting – on how feedback is used to move forward
Feedback AF3 Providing training for students in how to give, use and seek
feedback with others.
Making requirements for peer support explicit
Ensuring team activities are authentic and support students to use
the individual strengths of team members to maximise outputs
Reward based on getting all team members over the line
Making the tensions involved in team work explicit from the outset
Providing the mechanisms to support the building of team networks
Flexibility in team membership and individual ownership of
team efforts
Students engaged in identifying ‘crunch points’ for future cohorts
and providing timely training for peers
Feedback AF4 Student self-assessment built into all activities
Students engaged in summative marking
Table 1 continued: Effectiveness Factors in using EAT (Evans et al., 2019. Maximising Student
Success OfS project, p. 83–85)
Table 1 Effectiveness Factors in using EAT continued
EAT Principles EAT areas Elements evident in successful case studies
a. shared beliefs and values
between academics and students
b. student-academic partnership
c. inclusivity from universal design
perspectives
d. sensitivity to context
e. holistic – experience of the student
learning journey in its entirety
f. integrative – interconnected
g. agentic in promoting student and
academic ownership of assessment
h. meaningful learning experiences
i. sustainable
j. evidence-based
Design
AD1
Training staff and students in assessment regulations
Making marking and moderation procedures explicit
Allocating time in workload models to ensure teams are able
to come together to discuss assessment processes and to
calibrate judgements
Design
AD2
Designing assessments that require students to engage
Emphasis on inquiry based, project/product based learning
requiring depth of understanding
Emphasis on students as producers working in partnership with
lecturers on real problems with a community focus
Students as mentors to others
Design
AD3
Making how to access and use resources explicit
Clarifying what good resources look like and how to access them
Supporting students to build their own networks of support beyond
their current network base
Engaging students in resource development and research
Analysis of data to interrogate whether any students are
disadvantaged by assessment
Ensuring the mode of assessment is the most appropriate to test
understanding required by the learning outcome and being explicit on
the range of ways in which meeting the requirements of the learning
outcome can be achieved
36 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Table 1 continued: Effectiveness Factors in using EAT (Evans et al., 2019. Maximising Student
Success OfS project, p. 83–85)
Table 1 Effectiveness Factors in using EAT continued
37 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Inclusive Assessment Practices
Ensuring that our practice:
Provides all students and staff with equal
access to learning in respecting diversity,
enabling participation, working with students
and staff to remove barriers and
is cognizant of individual learning needs;
attends to reasonable adjustments
(Equality Act, 2010).
Clarifies the role of the student in the
process from the outset and addresses
the issue of relevance and ownership.
Establishes with students their starting
points and maps their journey through the
progressive development of knowledge,
skills, and understanding to meet the
programme level outcomes.
Ensures individual learning needs are
met through a Universal Design stance –
ensuring that the curriculum allows students
to navigate the curriculum in different ways
through attending to specifics of good
design; it is not about designing assessment
with a particular type of student in mind.
Alerts us to whether any student is being
inadvertently excluded through our on-going
analysis of the impact of what we do.
We need to constantly explore whether any
learner is being excluded from assessment.
Are students’ starting points taken
into consideration?
Are we aware of the needs of the
different tribes making up our intake?
Nature of assessment – do all have
equal access to content?
Is there sufficient variation in tasks
across a programme to meet the
requirements of different PLOs?
Is information clear, accessible,
and explicit?
Is it clear to the student what
good looks like?
Are alternative ways of ‘good’
demonstrated?
Does assessment allow a learner
to demonstrate what they can do?
Is feedback given in sufficient time
to allow a learner to use it?
38 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Are students supported in how
to use feedback?
Are students guided in how
to improve?
Is scaffolded support put in place
to support the learner journey and
removed accordingly to promote
student independence and not
dependence in learning?
Is the student given frequent
opportunities to self-test their
knowledge, understanding and skills?
Where there is free choice, how are
learners supported to make
informed choices?
Does the timing of assessment unfairly
impact certain learners?
Is information provided in good time
to allow students to navigate the
curriculum as they choose?
What does reasonable adjustments
mean in practice?
Inclusive Assessment Practices continued
39 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
The link between students’ abilities to self-
regulate their learning and successful learning
outcomes is well-known (Bembenutty, While,
& Vélez, 2015; Dent & Koenka, 2016;
Panadero, 2017).
Self-regulation is used widely within the
literature to mean the same and, or different
things. It can be seen as a process whereby
students set goals, devise strategies to achieve
those goals, attend to learning through the
use of cognitive, metacognitive and emotional
management of learning which includes
maintaining motivation, choosing appropriate
strategies to master a task, ongoing reviewing
and evaluation of performance to enhance
achievement of goals.
Self-Regulatory Assessment Practices
Metacognition denotes an ability to understand
one’s own learning processes, cognition an
ability to utilise cognitive strategies to master
a task, and emotional regulation, the ability
to manage one’s emotions at all stages in
completion of a learning task.
Assessment design should enable students
to develop their self-regulatory abilities as
an integral part of curriculum design.
As highlighted in Table 2, there are high-level
self-regulatory processes that are known to
impact learning outcomes as highlighted by
Dinsmore, 2017. Over-scaffolding of learning
can work against the development of self-
regulatory capacity. In projects used to support
development of students’ self-regulatory
abilities, too much scaffolding led to negative
self-regulatory strategies such as minimum
effort regulation, where for example, students
become increasingly reliant on teacher input,
and subsequently regulated their learning by
realising that they need to do less to achieve
goals (Evans et al., 2019). Dinsmore (2017),
like Schneider and Preckel (2017) highlights
the importance of students’ discriminatory use
of strategies in terms of appropriate use of
strategies and the quality of strategy use.
“
Students’ strategies for learning and
exam preparation, for effort regulation,
and goal-setting demonstrate stronger
relationships with achievement than
their personalities or personal
backgrounds.
”
Schneider and Preckel, 2017, p. 595
40 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Self-Regulatory Assessment Practices continued
Key considerations to support
self-regulatory capacity
Identifying and mapping high level skills
required throughout a programme of study.
Awareness of potential skills gaps between
school level learning and HE within
the discipline.
Signposting at point of entry the key
knowledge, understanding and skills
students will need to be successful in
their field of inquiry.
Modelling approaches to developing
key skills.
Repeated practice and application of
such skills in real life/approximations
of practice conditions.
Training for staff and students in the
development of self-regulatory skills.
41 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Self-regulatory skills implicated in
assessment feedback
Self-regulatory behaviours in managing
assessment and feedback
Specifics
Metacognitive strategy use: knowing how, when,
and where to deploy a strategy
Cognitive control
Quality: how well a strategy is executed
Conditional use: how appropriately a strategy is used
Task analysis: accurate assessment of task and what
you know and do not know
Meta-memory: memory of what you know
Accuracy for recognising or knowing a task and predicting
one’s knowledge
Planning regulation of a task: organisational and
motivational skills in setting goals, understanding the
necessary steps in the assessment process and
developing an action plan to achieve these goals.
Goal setting: grade goal (minimum level one wants to achieve); learning-oriented
goals versus performance goals
Ability to set specific, manageable, and challenging
mastery goals
Contextual regulation: ability to influence the
environment to support learning
Situation awareness
Personal-interpersonal competence
Selective use: knowing when, why, and from whom
to seek support – cue seeking; help-seeking
Quality of, and selective use of networks of support
Flexibility: boundary crossing – adaptability – ability to transfer
and adapt ideas across contexts
Metacognitive monitoring of cognitive, volitional
(motivational and affective) states to support effort
regulation and attention-focusing in pursuit of goals.
Ability to rely on own internal processes to make
progress against goals and adapt one’s plan
as necessary.
To self-monitor in the moment, and to monitor overall
plan of activity.
Adaptive control: flexible use of self-regulation strategies
Absolute accuracy in relation to expected and actual performance
Relative accuracy: being able to discriminate between the differential learning for
some materials versus others
Availability and accurate use of predictive cues to measure progress
Best use of time: choosing deliberately when and where to invest time and
mental resources
Self-reflection: ability to critically reflect
on one’s own performance and also to be reflexive
– to be able to see the situation from different
perspectives – an ‘outward in glance’ – objective
assessment of the situation.
Self-evaluative capacity: ability to accurately estimate one’s performance bringing
together information from a range of sources;
Accuracy in attributing the causes of success and/or failure
Table 2: Self-regulatory skills implicated in assessment feedback
(taken from Evans & Waring, 2020 in submitted)
sort out table order - ask
PR
43 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Integrating Assessment: Key Considerations Part 1
Scaling up Assessment
Feedback Practices
Using the EAT framework from programme
lead/faculty/university perspectives
highlights scaling-up considerations:
‘We must find ways to stimulate and scale
change across institutions-as well as to sustain
those changes–if we are to create models that
serve the expanding needs of our learners...’
Clarity/Clear communication Transparency
Entitlement for staff and students Agency
Coherence/Alignment Fit
Consistency Creativity
Equity Universal Design
Relevance Agility
Sustainability Manageability
Measuring What We Value Ownership
Technology supporting assessment design Symbiosis
Shared understandings of standards Calibrated
This leads to the core question of
‘…Where should we put strategic and
sustainable efforts to improve uneven
performance and variable outcomes.’
(Ward, 2013)
43 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
44 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
In supporting higher education assessment
communities of practice, the importance of
developing shared understandings of good
practice based on research and practice
evidence, and ensuring alignment of systems
and processes to support such endeavours
are essential at the institutional level. Drawing
on European University Association Guidance
(Evans (2019) in Bunesco & Evans, 2019, p. 7)
an integrated approach at the institutional
level requires:
Conceptual awareness: An understanding
of assessment as an integral part of dynamic
curriculum design where all elements of
assessment are interlinked. Good feedback
requires consideration of assessment design
and promotion of assessment literacy.
Contextual awareness in relation to
promoting graduate attributes that are
attuned to fourth industrial age needs.
Organisational awareness in supporting the
development of effective aligned systems
and processes that promote team ownership
and development of assessment. Teams to
include all stakeholders (students, teachers,
technology support, information services,
employers etc.)
Individual differences awareness in being
able to critically evaluate the impact of
assessment on all learners throughout
their learning journeys.
Table 3 can be used by those responsible for
assessment at the institutional level to consider
how well prepared a university is to support
effective assessment feedback on the ground.
A suggested scoring is provided:
1 = Has not been considered at all to
5 = Has been considered fully and
operationalised.
Integrating Assessment: Key Considerations Part 1
continued
45 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Table 3 can be used by those responsible for
assessment at the institutional level to consider
how well prepared a university is to support
effective assessment feedback on the ground.
Institutional Support for Assessment
Table 3: Institutional Support for Assessment: Key Priorities (EUA: Evans & Bunesco, 2020).
https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20report%20student%20assessment_web.pdf
A suggested scoring is provided:
1 = Has not been considered at all
5 = Has been considered fully and
operationalised.
Key Priorities Rating
1–5
Agreed purposes/principles/ethics
1 Assessment and feedback principles are agreed at institutional level
and act as a baseline for all assessment feedback endeavours.
2There is clear university-level guidance on assessment criteria, and this is
translated to programme and module/course levels by discipline teams involving
staff and students.
3 Student partnership in co-production of assessment is promoted
(policy/teaching/marking/feedback/moderation/research/leadership/enterprise).
Alignment of systems and processes
4 University structures support an integrated university approach to
assessment. There are designated assessment leads in each discipline and
clear priorities established for enhancing assessment practices sensitive to
context.
5There is strong alignment between institutional assessment strategic
priorities and enactment of assessment strategy at the local level but
flexibility to allow fine-tuning to local contexts.
6 Time is allocated within workload models for team planning of assessment
design, marking and moderation.
7 Transparency is promoted in all assessment processes
(rationale behind assessment design and how marks are allocated
and moderated, appeals managed etc.).
9 Personal academic tutoring assessment support is aligned with course
demands and identified cohort needs.
9 Transitions management ensures mapping of key crunch points in assessment
for students and academics to ensure appropriate monitoring and support.
10 Electronic management of assessment fully supports the assessment
process in providing seamless registration, submission of work, and online
support via virtual learning systems aligned to personal networks.
46 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Table 3: Institutional Support for Assessment: Key Priorities (EUA: Evans & Bunesco, 2020).
https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20report%20student%20assessment_web.pdf
Institutional Support for Assessment continued
Key Priorities Rating
1–5
Agility and quality of systems to support assessment
11 Best use is made of technology to support assessment processes
(e.g., mode and timing of feedback; virtual learning; personalised support
using AI; predictive analytics).
12 Assessment resources have a dedicated website with links to key materials to
support an institutional assessment network
13 QA structures and processes are agile to support ongoing enhancement in
assessment design to ensure relevance
14 Processes for checking the integrity of awarded grades, to fully address
issues around grade inflation, are robust.
Inclusive
15 There is commitment to inclusive assessment principles, such as Universal
Design, to enable all students to have equitable access to, and chances of
success within, assessment and feedback.
16 Data analysis is used to ensure assessment is not disadvantaging
any specific groups of students.
Research-informed
17 There is a commitment to the development of research-informed assessment
and feedback processes and evaluation of effectiveness using fine-grained
measures of student learning gains at the discipline level.
18 Staff and students receive comprehensive induction into assessment
feedback processes in an iterative and developmental way
(quality assurance processes; peer and self-assessment, mentoring etc.).
19 Interdisciplinary assessment communities of practice are supported and
leadership training provided to sustain and develop them.
47 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Table 3: Institutional Support for Assessment: Key Priorities (EUA: Evans & Bunesco, 2020).
https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20report%20student%20assessment_web.pdf
To consider elements of good assessment
feedback design in more detail see G3 and G4
Institutional Support for Assessment continued
Key Priorities Rating
1–5
Reward
20 There is reward and recognition for effectiveness in assessment
and feedback for staff and students.
21 Course evaluations are aligned to high-level focused learning outcomes
that place emphasis on students’ development of high-level skills.
Sustainability
22 Assessment load and distribution of assessment is regularly reviewed
to ensure manageability for staff and students.
23 Emphasis is on a programme level approach to assessment where assessment
is co-constructed with teams and links between modules are clear.
24 Emphasis is on best use of resource; and in promoting student engagement
and self-regulation of assessment so that students are guided in how to evaluate
the quality of their own work for themselves.
25 There is a team approach to assessment engaging with wider stakeholders
within and beyond the university to support authentic assessment practices
(eg., IT teams, library, careers, employers, professional bodies, alumni).
48 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Key Considerations Part 2
(read in conjunction with EAT cards) Appendix E
1. Rationale and goals. Is the key driver/
rationale underpinning change to
assessment and feedback practices clear
to all? Are short and long-term goals
transparent? Using the EAT framework
it is possible to identify measured steps
and ‘quick gains’ that can be achieved
that are aligned to longer term goals.
A key question is how priorities are
being identified and communicated?
2. Being clear about the essential elements
of a scaling-up initiative is critical
(Gabriel, 2014). The EAT Framework’s
essential elements are:
(i) inclusivity with an emphasis on
developing autonomy and agency for staff
and students in the promotion of self-
regulatory learning behaviours as part
of a universal design approach; (ii) the
integrated holistic framework considering
all dimensions of assessment practice;
(iii) theoretical underpinnings (cognitive
constructivist and social constructivist/
social-critical theoretical perspectives
(PLSP, Waring & Evans)).
3. Developing shared understandings from
staff and student perspectives about
‘what constitutes good and how this
can be developed.’ A key tenet of the
EAT framework is the importance of
exploring stakeholder beliefs and values
about assessment practices to ensure
buy-in and ownership of ideas (The EAT
framework has identified principles of
effective assessment and feedback practice
based on extensive reviews of the literature
and practice-based evidence (see Evans,
2016, p.15; Evans, 2013; Evans, et al.,
2015).
4. Alignment with institutional priorities
and structures. The EAT framework
supports the development of manageable
and sustainable assessment feedback
practices. Aligning the framework with
institutional/faculty/programme priorities
with top-down and bottom-up support
involving the engagement of senior
leaders, students, and staff is important
along with integrating the framework into
existing structures to ensure its inclusion
in the ‘institutional HE fabric’ and to
avoid duplication of effort (Hounsell &
Rigby, 2013).
49 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
5. Building a community of practice and
shared ownership of the initiative.
In developing a holistic approach to
assessment, bringing teams together
to explore at programme level how
assessment can work most effectively is
imperative (Bass, 2012). A key element
of this work is on-going focused training
and support using research-informed
evidence nuanced to the requirements of
the context/discipline (Evans et al., 2015).
Identification of advocates, clarifying the
mechanisms for how networks are to
be created, maintained, and developed
are all fundamental to the longer–term
sustainability of the initiative.
6. Reward. Individual (staff and student)
recognition and reward for engagement
in the development of assessment
practices should be an integral part
of HEI reward structures. Ensuring
manageability and efficiency are key
concerns within the EAT framework
mindful of the competing pressures on
colleagues’ time from research, leadership,
and enterprise activities in addition to
teaching commitments. An effective ‘one-
stop shop’ website to pool resources,
encourage collaboration, promote shared
understandings, and to provide links to
key areas of activity is essential.
7. Measuring what is meaningful. Relevant
learning gain measures should be an
integral part of holistic assessment designs
and they should be subject to on-going
evaluation and review by staff and students.
The effectiveness of the overarching
assessment feedback strategy in meeting
immediate and longer term goals requires
iterative analysis to enable fine-tuning
and attention to the requirements of the
disciplines. A critical pedagogy perspective,
that considers who is advantaged and
disadvantaged by assessment practices,
is required in order to address differential
learning outcomes (Mountford Zimdars
et al., 2015; Waring & Evans, 2015).
Key Considerations Part 2
(read in conjunction with EAT cards) Appendix E
continued
50 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Evaluating Assessment
Practices
The EAT Framework places much emphasis
on training and development of academics’
and student understanding and engagement
with assessment (Use Appendices B–D to
consider specific elements of staff and student
engagement in assessment, and Appendix G
to consider overall institutional approach to
assessment feedback ). Key considerations
include how we evaluate the effectiveness of
what we do, in an iterative development way
with all stakeholders.
Specifically, we need to consider both
the process and products of learning.
By monitoring student learning trajectories,
we can investigate whether assessment
practices have differential impacts on
students’ from different backgrounds
(Evans et al., 2019).
Impact Perspectives
Significance = What is/are the best
outcome(s) we could reasonably expect
from a specific ‘group’.
Reach = What percentage of the relevant
audience are you engaging with, and within
your specific field?
Types of Impact:
Impacts on attitudes; behaviours; process
and products; wider benefits; embeddedness;
sustainability; transferability; scaleability.
Specifically, impact on engagement at a
number of levels:
(i) Impact on beliefs and values as articulated
in practice
(ii) Impact on curriculum design and delivery
(iii) Impact on professional development of
staff and students
(iv) Impact on student learning, attitudes,
behaviours, satisfaction, longer term
learning retention
(v) Impact on learning and teaching beyond
HE with partners in industry, business,
medical, school contexts etc.)
(vi) Impact on policy at various levels
50 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
51
Evaluating Impact of Assessment Interventions
Table 4: Application considerations
Sustainability: Students taking more responsibility
for assessment – becoming more self-regulatory.
Efficient use of resource.
How to build student responsibility and ownership of assessment?
Is it manageable?
Is it cost-effective – bang for buck? Does the degree of impact (effect size)
justify the effort?
Embeddedness: Built into curriculum design
‘part of the fabric of things’.
Is the approach embedded within curriculum design?
Is the approach endorsed by the institution and embedded within institutional processes?
Is it embedded within CPD provision?
Is it aligned to institutional strategy(ies) and part of institutional policy?
Scaleability: depth and breadth
Transferability: across contexts
Is it scaleable to programme, discipline, faculty, university levels?
Can the approaches be used in a variety of contexts?
How easy is it to adapt it to suit different contexts and local needs?
Impact on reducing differential
student learning outcomes
Have any identified gaps in achievement been reduced?
Are we able to identify any specific assessment design practices that have
made a significant impact generally and for specific groups?
52 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
EAT and Advance HE Fellowships
Reward and Recognition
It is essential that efforts to enhance
assessment feedback practices are
acknowledged and rewarded. EAT has been
used to support both internal university awards,
National Teaching Fellowships (NTF), and
Collaborative and Spotlight awards for teaching
excellence at the institutional level (CATE)
and professional development HEA fellowship
awards with Advance HE. In working towards
national qualification frameworks such as the
UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF,
2011), the ability to reflect and evaluate on
practice is critical and EAT gives you many
tools to be able to do this.
The UKPSF (2011) supports the development
of professional practice of those engaged in
teaching and supporting learning within higher
education. It was developed as a standards
framework for the HE sector that sets out the
knowledge, skills and behaviours demonstrated
by those teaching and/or supporting higher
education learning. There are two elements to
the UKPSF; the Dimensions of the Framework
(Figure 3.1) and four Descriptor/Category
statements. (pp. 3–6, UKPSF, 2011).
The four categories of HEA Fellowship are
awarded on the basis of evidence of personal
professional practice which meets the
requirements of one of the four Descriptors
of the UKPSF. The different categories of
HEA Fellowship reflect the wide range of
professional practice carried out by individuals
who teach and/or support learning in higher
education; from those who have a partial role in
teaching/supporting learning through to senior
professionals with strategic impact on teaching
and learning in an organisational, national and/
or international setting. In deciding which
category of Fellowship to apply for at this
stage in your career, you will need to determine
which of the four Descriptors of the UKPSF
is most appropriate to your practice and
professional experience.
52 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
(Appendix H)
53 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Links to the framework and
associated information include:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/ukpsf
www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/
downloads/ukpsf_2011_english.pdf
www.heacademy.ac.uk/
recognition-accreditation/fellowships/
recognition-resources
UKPSF Dimensions of Practice
The UKPSF has 15 dimensions of practice,
grouped into three overarching themes:
Professional Values, Core Knowledge and
Areas of Activity
The EAT Framework uses an understanding
of assessment to inform curriculum design
and delivery through focusing on assessment
design. The principles underpinning EAT are
aligned to the UKPSF values (V1–V4).
54 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Figure 8: UKPSF Dimensions of Practice
UKPSF Dimensions of Professional Practice
Professional Values
V1 Respect individual learners and diverse learning communities
V2 Promote participation in higher education and equality of opportunity
for learners
V3 Use evidence-informed approaches and the outcomes from research,
scholarship and continuing professional development
V4 Acknowledge the wider context in which higher education operates
recognising the implications for professional practice
Areas of Activity
A1 Design and plan
learning activities and/or
programmes of study
A2 Teach and/or
support learning
A3 Assess and give feedback
to learners
A4 Develop effective learning
environments and
approaches to student
support and guidance
A5 Engage in continuing
professional development
in subjects/disciplines
and their pedagogy,
incorporating research,
scholarship and
the evaluation of
professional practices
Core Knowledge
K1 The subject material
K2 Appropriate methods for
teaching, learning, and
assessing in the subject
area and at the category of
the academic programme
K3 How students learn, both
generally and within their
subject/disciplinary area(s)
K4 The use and value of
appropriate learning
technologies
K5 Methods for evaluating the
effectiveness of teaching
K6 The implications of quality
assurance and quality
enhancement for academic
and professional practice
with a particular focus
on teaching
55 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
EAT Principles and the UKPSF
EAT Principles UKPSF Values
Shared beliefs and values
Student-staff partnership
Research-informed/
practice informed
Inclusive approach
Holistic – considering the whole
experience of staff/students
Integrative – considering all
dimensions of assessment design
and how they interact
Promotion of student/staff agency
Supporting individuals to self-
manage their own learning as part
of a self-regulatory approach
Ensuring emphasis is on
meaningful assessment practices
(relevance and authenticity)
Sensitive to context: taking account
of individual and contextual
variables and the specific
requirements of disciplines.
V1 Respect individual learners and diverse
learning communities
V2 Promote participation in higher education and
equality of opportunity for learners
V3 Use evidence-informed approaches and the
outcomes from research, scholarship and
continuing professional development
V4 Acknowledge the wider context in which higher
education operates recognising the implications
for professional practice
Table 5: EAT Principles and UKPSF
UKPSF Areas of Activity and Core Knowledge
Dimensions can be aligned with the EAT
Framework; the emphasis on evaluating the
effectiveness of teaching and implications
of quality assurance and enhancement for
academic and professional practice are
fundamental to the EAT framework.
56 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Figure 9: EAT and the UKPSF
Appendix H contains details for meeting
fellowship at associate, fellow, senior fellow
and principal fellow dependent on role and
key areas of focus.
Areas of Activity: The
EAT framework specifically
addresses curriculum
design, teaching delivery
and training involving
students and staff informed
by knowledge of high
impact pedagogies.
Core Knowledge is central
to the EAT framework in
identifying the requirements
of the discipline, what to
teach and how best to do
this to maximise access
to learning. Evaluation of
practice and emphasis
on quality assurance and
enhancement are all central
to the framework.
EAT Principles align with
the UKPSF Professional
Values in promoting
inclusive practices and
evidence-based learning
informed by international
research and practice.
In the following appendices the EAT Framework
diagrams are located including BLANK
COPIES to enable you to personalise items
to ensure relevance to local contexts.
Professional
Values
Areas of Activity
EAT and the UKPSF
Core Knowledge
57 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Appendix A
59 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Formative feedback includes all those resources
that enable a student to make progress in their
learning, both in the immediate and longer term.
This definition of feedback places considerable
emphasis on feed-forward (how feedback can
be applied by the learner and teacher to support
learning within the context of a programme,
and in future learning gains into employment –
feed-up). Feedback is not the sole responsibility
of the lecturer; the student should be an
active seeker, user, and contributor to the
feedback process.
Assessment design should, therefore, be
aimed at supporting students to self-monitor/
self-regulate their own learning. Access to
suitable resources, and supporting students in
developing their assessment literacy skills are
fundamental elements of effective assessment
feedback provision within higher education
(Evans, 2013).
Assessment should be fit for purpose; with
the purposes of assessment that is clear to all
parties and promoted through an active on-
going dialogue as part of curriculum design
and development. Assessment practices
support learning and provide a measure of
the extent to which an individual has met the
required learning outcomes. Understanding the
assessment process is fundamental in enabling
effective use of assessment feedback. Students
need to co-own the assessment feedback
process if they are to gain maximum benefit
from it as genuine partners in the process.
The importance of engaging students in
meaningful assessment practices throughout
their higher education experience is highlighted
along with the importance of acknowledging
and supporting student transitions. The
assessment feedback process is seen
holistically in terms of how all assessment
components fit together and are aligned
to support the student journey. A critical
pedagogic stance is integral in ensuring
ongoing evaluation of assessment feedback
processes and the provision of appropriate
training to support staff and students in
assessment feedback practices.
Appendix A1: Guidance on
Assessment Feedback Design
60 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Effective assessment feedback
practices should support students to:
Participate fully in assessment
feedback processes;
Understand the assessment feedback
requirements of the discipline/profession
they are working in;
Embrace the aims and expectations
of their chosen programme of study;
Demonstrate understanding of, and an ability
to reflect on their development
of knowledge and skills as part of
self-evaluation;
Recognise and value existing knowledge and
skills and build upon them in order
to apply learning to new contexts;
Appendix A1: Guidance on
Assessment Feedback Design continued
Make effective and responsible use
of feedback that is provided;
Offer feedback and support to others as
part of collaborative learning opportunities;
Understand sound academic practice and
behave with integrity;
Use resources, including own
time effectively;
Contribute effectively to teaching
sessions including peer support;
Contribute to the development of the
design and delivery of assessment
feedback practices
61 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Appendix A2: Effective
Assessment Feedback Principles
The key aim of assessment feedback should
be to support students to become more self-
regulatory in managing their own learning as
part of sustainable assessment practice;
a focus on three core areas is recommended:
Assessment Literacy; Facilitating Improvements
in Learning; Holistic Assessment Design.
To support assessment literacy we should:
1. Clarify what the assessment is and how
it is organised. Explain the principles
underpinning the design of assessment
so that students can understand the
relevance and value of it.
2. Provide explicit guidance to students on
the requirements of each assessment (e.g.,
clarification of assessment criteria; learning
outcomes; good academic practice).
3. Clarify with students the different forms,
sources, and timings of feedback available
including e-learning opportunities.
4. Clarify the role of the student in the
feedback process as an active participant
(seeking, using, and giving feedback
to self and peers; developing networks
of support), and not just as a receiver
of feedback.
5. Provide opportunities for students to
work with assessment criteria and to
work with examples of work at different
grade levels in order to understand
‘what constitutes good.’
To facilitate improvements in learning
we should:
6. Ensure that the curriculum design enables
sufficient time for students to apply the
lessons learnt from formative feedback
in their summative assessments.
7. Give clear and focused feedback on how
students can improve their work including
signposting the most important areas
to address (what was good; what could
be improved; and most importantly,
how to improve).
8. Ensure that formative feedback precedes
summative assessment; that the links
between formative feedback and the
requirements of summative assessment
are clear.
9. Ensure that there are opportunities and
support for students to develop self-
assessment/self-monitoring skills,
and training in peer feedback to
support self-understanding of
assessment and feedback.
10. Ensure training opportunities on
assessment feedback for all those
engaged in curriculum delivery to
enhance shared understanding of
assessment requirements.
62 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
To promote holistic assessment
design we should:
11. Ensure that opportunities for formative
assessment are integral to curriculum
design at module and programme levels.
12. Ensure that all core* resources are
available to students electronically through
the virtual learning environment
(e.g., Blackboard) and other relevant
sources from the start of the semester
to enable students to take responsibility
for organising their own learning.
13. Provide an appropriate range and
choice of assessment opportunities
throughout a programme of study.
14. Ensure that there are opportunities
for students to feedback on learning
and teaching, both individually, and
via the Students’ Union’s Academic
Representatives, during a taught module
as well as at the end of it, to enable
reasonable amendments to be made
during the teaching of the module subject
to the discretion of the module leader.
Appendix A2: Effective
Assessment Feedback Principles continued
*Core = handbook; assessment guidelines;
formative and summative tasks and deadlines;
resources for each session
(Based on: Evans, 2013 and developed with
Researching Assessment Practices Group,
University of Southampton, UK 2015–2019)
Appendix B
64 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Lecturer/Educator
Versions
65 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
The Three Core
Dimensions of EAT
Assessment
Design
Assessment
Literacy
Assessment
Feedback
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
66 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
67
AL 1: Clarify what constitutes good
Standard of work; recognition and application of
good academic practice; student and lecturer beliefs.
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements
fit together
AL3: Clarify student and staff entitlement
Student/Lecturer roles and principles underpinning
the ‘What’, ‘When’, and ‘How’ of feedback.
AL4: Clarify the requirements of the discipline
Core and threshold concepts; deep approach.
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback
The pattern and timing of assessment, and
alignment of formative to summative assessment.
AF3: Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
Specific, and focused on how to improve.
Encourage students to clarify their interpretation
of the feedback.
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Self-monitoring, self-assessment,
and critical reflection.
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1: Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures
QA literacy.
AD2: Promote meaningful and focused assessment
Fit for Purpose; Relevant Programme Level
Assessment; Collaborative Design; Manageable.
AD3: Ensure access and equal opportunities
Provision of Resources; Guidance; Network
Development; Choice.
AD4: Ensure ongoing evaluation to support the
development of sustainable assessment and
feedback practice
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix B1: EAT areas document Lecturer
Assessment LiteracyAssessment Design
Lecturer
68
AL1: Clarify what constitutes good
Standard of work; recognition and application of
good academic practice; student and lecturer beliefs.
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements
fit together
AL3: Clarify student and staff entitlement
Student/Lecturer roles and principles underpinning
the ‘What’, ‘When’, and ‘How’ of feedback.
AL4: Clarify the requirements of the discipline
Core and threshold concepts; deep approach.
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback
The pattern and timing of assessment, and
alignment of formative to summative assessment.
AF3: Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
Specific, and focused on how to improve.
Encourage students to clarify their interpretation
of the feedback.
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Self-monitoring, self-assessment,
and critical reflection.
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1: Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures
QA literacy.
AD2: Promote meaningful and focused assessment
Fit for Purpose; Relevant Programme Level
Assessment; Collaborative Design; Manageable.
AD3: Ensure access and equal opportunities
Provision of Resources; Guidance; Network
Development; Choice.
AD4: Ensure ongoing evaluation to support the
development of sustainable assessment and
feedback practice
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix B2c: EAT scoring document (colour version) Lecturer
Assessment LiteracyAssessment Design
Lecturer
69
AL1: Clarify what constitutes good
Standard of work; recognition and application of
good academic practice; student and lecturer beliefs.
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements
fit together
AL3: Clarify student and staff entitlement
Student/Lecturer roles and principles underpinning
the ‘What’, ‘When’, and ‘How’ of feedback.
AL4: Clarify the requirements of the discipline
Core and threshold concepts; deep approach.
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback
The pattern and timing of assessment, and
alignment of formative to summative assessment.
AF3: Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
Specific, and focused on how to improve.
Encourage students to clarify their
interpretation of the feedback.
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Self-monitoring, self-assessment,
and critical reflection.
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1: Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures
QA literacy.
AD2: Promote meaningful and focused assessment
Fit for Purpose; Relevant Programme Level
Assessment; Collaborative Design; Manageable.
AD3: Ensure access and equal opportunities
Provision of Resources; Guidance; Network
Development; Choice.
AD4: Ensure ongoing evaluation to support the
development of sustainable assessment and
feedback practice
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix B2bw: EAT scoring document (B&W version) Lecturer
70
AL1: Clarify what constitutes good
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements
fit together
AL3: Clarify student and
staff entitlement
AL4: Clarify the requirements
of the discipline
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities for
students to act on feedback
AF3: Prepare students
for meaningful dialogue/
peer engagement
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1:
QA literacy
AD2:
Promote meaningful
and focused assessment
AD3: Ensure access and
equal opportunities
AD4: Ensure ongoing evaluation
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix B2bv: lecturer blank version Lecturer
Appendix C
Student Versions
73
AL1: What constitutes good?
What am I aiming for? Do I know what good looks
like? Do I know what to do to meet the assessment
criteria and learning outcomes.
AL2: How assessment elements fit together
Have I mapped how the assessment works in/across
modules and how I am going to manage this?
AL3: Student and staff entitlement
Do I know what: feedback looks like; support I am
entitled to; my role in feedback is?
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements of
the discipline?
Am I aware of the key concepts I need to know
and the main ways of working and thinking in my
discipline? Do I feel part of the discipline?
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Using formative feedback opportunities
Am I making full use of opportunities to get
feedback on my work? Do I actively seek out
feedback opportunities?
AF3: Have I done the necessary preparation
to participate fully in peer dialogue?
How do I support others in giving and
receiving feedback?
AF1: Ensuring I know how to improve
Do I know how to improve my work from the
feedback? If it is not clear, what am I doing
about it?
AF4: Self-evaluation
Do I know how I am doing? Do I know what
to do when I do not know? How am I
managing myself?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix C1: EAT student areas document Student
AD1: Do I have a good understanding of
assessment processes/requirements
AD2: Meaningful work
Am I using the knowledge acquired across modules
to inform my overall development? Am I adopting a
deep approach in my work?
AD3: Making the best use of resources
Do I know how to access and make best use of
resources? Am I developing networks to support
my learning now and into employment?
AD4: Supporting the development of the course
Am I giving useful feedback on how to enhance
assessment feedback practice? How am I owning
the course?
74
AL1: What constitutes good?
What am I aiming for? Do I know what good looks
like? Do I know what to do to meet the assessment
criteria and learning outcomes.
AL2: How assessment elements fit together
Have I mapped how the assessment works in/across
modules, and how I am going to manage them all?
AL3: Student and staff entitlement
Do I know what: feedback looks like; support I am
entitled to; my role in feedback is?
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements
of the discipline?
Am I aware of the key concepts I need to know
and the main ways of working and thinking in my
discipline? Do I feel part of the discipline?
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Using formative feedback opportunities
Am I actively seeking out feedback
opportunities and making full use of them?
AF3: Have I done the necessary preparation
to participate fully in peer dialogue?
How do I support others in giving and
receiving feedback?
AF1: Ensuring I know how to improve
Do I know how to improve my work from the
feedback? If it is not clear, what am I doing
about it?
AF4: Self-evaluation
Do I know how I am doing? Do I know what to
do when I do not know? Am I managing my
learning effectively?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
AD1: Do I have a good understanding of HE
assessment processes /and regulations
AD2: Meaningful work
Am I using the knowledge acquired across modules
to inform my overall development? Am I adopting a
deep approach in my work?
AD3: Making the best use of resources
Do I know how to access and make best use of
resources? Am I developing networks to support my
learning now and into employment?
AD4: Supporting the development of the course
Am I giving useful feedback on how to enhance
assessment feedback practice? How am I owning
the course?
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix C2c: EAT student scoring colour document Student
75
AL1: What constitutes good?
What am I aiming for? Do I know what good looks
like? Do I know what to do to meet the assessment
criteria and learning outcomes.
AL2: How assessment elements fit together
Have I mapped how the assessment works in/across
modules and how I am going to manage this?
AL3: Student and staff entitlement
Do I know what: feedback looks like; support I am
entitled to; my role in feedback is?
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements of
the discipline?
Am I aware of the key concepts I need to know
and the main ways of working and thinking in my
discipline? Do I feel part of the discipline?
Assessment Literacy
AF2:
Using formative feedback opportunities
Am I making full use of opportunities to get
feedback on my work? Do I actively seek out
feedback opportunities?
AF3:
Have I done the necessary preparation
to participate fully in peer dialogue?
How do I support others in giving and
receiving feedback?
AF1: Ensuring I know how to improve
Do I know how to improve my work from the
feedback? If it is not clear, what am I doing
about it?
AF4: Self-evaluation
Do I know how I am doing? Do I know what
to do when I do not know? How am I
managing myself?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix C2bw: EAT student black and white scoring document Student
AD1: Do I have a good understanding of
assessment processes/requirements
AD2: Meaningful work
Am I using the knowledge acquired across modules
to inform my overall development? Am I adopting a
deep approach in my work?
AD3: Making the best use of resources
Do I know how to access and make best use of
resources? Am I developing networks to support
my learning now and into employment?
AD4: Supporting the development of the course
Am I giving useful feedback on how to enhance
assessment feedback practice? How am I owning
the course?
76
AL1: I am clear about what good looks like?
AL2: How does all the assessment
fit together?
AL3: Am I clear about what being and expert in
this subject/profession requires?
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements of
the discipline?
Assessment Literacy
AF2:
Do I make the most of all
opportunities
to test my understanding?
AF3: Have I prepared sufficiently to make
the most of learning opportunities? Do I
actively support others?
AF1: Am I able to use feedback from
others effectively?
AF4: How accurate is my own assessment
of how I am doing?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix C3bv: EAT student BLANK scoring document Student
AD1: Do I understand regulations?
AD2: Am I doing my best to really understand
the subject?
AD3: Do I know where and how to access
resources and network well?
AD4: Am I contributing to teaching, research,
enterprise to enhance my learning and that
of others?
Appendix D
PhD Versions
79
Appendix D1 PHD Lecturer Version PHD Lecturer
AL1: Clarify what constitutes good?
Do you and your PhD student have a shared
understanding of what quality at PhD looks like
especially in relation to their focus and design?
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements fit together
Is it clear to the student how the different element
of their PhD programme fit together and the
requirements of them?
AL3: Clarify student and staff entitlement
Have supervisory expectations been agreed and
made clear from the outset? feedback is?
AL4: Clarify the requirements of PhD study
(e.g., in relation to research questions, research design,
substantive content, analysis), and in addressing issues
of originality, contribution to research.
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback
How is supervision supporting
student progression?
AF3: Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
How are you encouraging students to
take responsibility for sessions/developing
networks etc./contributing to the work of
the department as members of the team?
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
Is the feedback you give supporting students
to take responsibility for themselves? How
do you know your feedback is accessible?
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
How are you engaging students in reviewing
their own and others’ work? (e.g., tools/
frameworks) my learning effectively?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
AD1: Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures: QA literacy:
How are students being made aware of regulations?
Do supervisors have shared understandings?
AD2: Promote meaningful and focused assessment
How is the PhD programme supporting student
progression in an integrated way and as integral
members of the research community?
AD3: Ensure access and equal opportunities
Have students been alerted to key resources,
sources of support? Have students’ individual
differences been addressed?
AD4: How are you reviewing in an ongoing way
how your student is doing and how your working
relationship is evolving?
80
AL1: Clarify what constitutes good?
AL2: Clarify how assessment elements
fit together
AL3: Clarify student and staff entitlement
AL4: Clarify the requirements of PhD study
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Provide early opportunities for
students to act on feedback
AF3: Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
AF1: Provide accessible feedback
AF4: Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix D1 PHD Lecturer Version blank scoring document PHD Lecturer
AD1: Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures: QA literacy
AD2: Promote meaningful and focused
assessment
AD3: Ensure access and equal opportunities
AD4: How are you reviewing in an ongoing way
how your student is doing and how your
working relationship is evolving?
81
AL1: What constitutes good?
What am I aiming for? Do I know what good looks
like? Do I know how to meet PhD assessment
requirements? What am I unclear about?
AL2: How assessment elements fit together
Have I mapped how the different elements of my PhD
programme fit together and how I will manage these?
AL3: Student and staff entitlement
Am I clear about my role and responsibilities
and those of my supervisors in the process?
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements
of the discipline?
Am I aware of the key concepts I need to know
and the main ways of working and thinking in my
discipline at PhD level?
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Using formative feedback opportunities
Am I making full use of opportunities to get
feedback on my work? Do I actively seek out
feedback opportunities?
AF3: Have I done the necessary preparation
to participate fully in peer dialogue?
How am I working with others to support my
understanding (e.g., discussion papers /
leading sessions)?
AF1: Ensuring I know how to improve
Do I know how to improve my work from the
feedback? If it is not clear, what am I doing
about it? (e.g., accessing training).
AF4: Self-evaluation
Do I know how I am doing? Do I know what to
do when I do not know? Am I managing my
learning effectively?
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix D PHD Student Version Student
AD1: Do I have a good understanding of PhD
regulations and where to access information
on this?
AD2: Meaningful work
Am I adopting a deep approach in my work? Do I
have a clear warrant (Why is my research important?
What is original about it? What lessons have I learnt
from it?). Am I am able to demonstrate criticality/
synthesis in my work? What is my roles as an
integral member of the research community?
AD3: Making best use of resources
Do I know how to access and make best use of
resources? Am I developing networks to support my
learning? Am I aware of key researchers in my field?
AD4: Supporting the development of the programme
How am I contributing to the PhD community?
What can I offer to enhance the development of the
programme; what activities can I initiate/contribute to.
82
AL1: What constitutes good?
AL2: How assessment elements fit together
AL3: Student and staff entitlement
AL4: Am I clear about the requirements of
the discipline?
Assessment Literacy
AF2: Using formative feedback
opportunities
AF3: Have I done the necessary
preparation
to participate fully in
peer dialogue?
AF1:
Ensuring I know how to improve
AF4: Self-evaluation
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Design
1 2 34 51
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
AL1
AL2
AL3
AL4
AF1
AD1
AF2
AD2
AF3
AD3
AF4
AD4
Appendix D PHD Student Version blank scoring document Student
AD1: Do I have a good understanding of PhD
regulations and where to access information
on this?
AD2: Meaningful work
AD3: Making best use of resources
AD4: Supporting the development of
the programme
Appendix E
Decision-making
cards
85 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Assessment Literacy
LT1 Provide explicit guidance from the outset on the requirements of the assessment tasks.
LT2 Check students’ understanding of requirements through small-focused tasks and
opportunities for discussion and reflection about the assessment criteria
(e.g., demystifying critical reflection; writing styles; referencing etc.).
LT3 Model examples of good practice in taught sessions.
LT4 Provide students with examples of good practice and identify why they are good using
explicit assessment marking criteria.
LT5 Select snippets of good practice to discuss in sessions on a regular basis.
LT6 Set formative tasks asking students to focus on key concepts.
LT7 Provide model answers to questions and FAQs that are also available online.
LT8 Develop rubrics so that students are directed to the requirements of the
assessment task.
AL 1 Clarify what constitutes good
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Get students to produce model answers individually and in groups to share
with their peers.
S2 Ask students to mark work using the assessment criteria.
S3 Get students to personalise the assessment criteria in relation to the requirements of a
specific task (i.e., write it in their own words).
S4 Get students to set the marking criteria for specific pieces of work using the guidelines
for assessment ratified for your module/ programme.
S5 Get students to advise on developing the assessment criteria guidance for following
cohorts of students; get students to map learning outcomes across modules.
S6 Get students to develop and personalise rubrics to support their own learning within
and beyond the module of study.
S7 Get students to self-assess their own performance as part of the summative
assessment (e.g., using the assessment criteria grid to annotate where they think they
are according to the different criteria and justify why).
S8 Give students an article to assess and then get students to moderate their decisions in
groups and to summarise and justify conclusions to the group.
Student Focused (S)
86 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
PD1 Do teams have a shared understanding of what constitutes good?
PD2 How is what constitutes good academic practice shared within and
across disciplines?
PD3 How are you ensuring that the assessment criteria are fit for purpose?
PD4 How are new colleagues inducted into the requirements of good academic practice?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
AL 1 Clarify what constitutes good continued
87 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Provide a route map/diagram showing how all assessment elements (formative and
summative) fit together for students and lecturers.
LT2 To ensure buy in – clarify with students why the assessment design is relevant
and valuable in supporting students to meet learning objectives within and beyond
the module.
LT3 Signpost key tasks and timelines.
LT4 Demonstrate how assessment tasks and assessment guidance are organised on
the virtual learning environment.
LT5 If completing formative assignments is a condition for submitting summative
assignments make this explicit from the start.
LT6 Revisit the assessment route map with students at regular intervals throughout the
module/programme.
AL 2 Clarify how assessment elements fit together
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Get students to produce their own picture of the assessment pattern and get them
to outline their role(s) in the process. (Gantt charts can be useful for students to
demonstrate how they are going to organise andmanage the requirements
of assessment).
S2 Get the students to rewrite the learning outcomes in their own language. Map with
them how you are intending to cover these within the module.
S3 Get students to complete a self-assessment on what aspects of assessment they are
clear about and what areas they need more guidance on. Produce a summary of key
points for all students based on student feedback queries.
S4 Involve students in contributing resources to the module/programme.
S5 How can students in years 1, 2 and 3 and at PG level contribute towards supporting
understanding of how the module/programme fits together; what resources can
they share?
S6 Ask students to review guidance in the handbook and to work with you to make
information more explicit where and if necessary.
Student Focused (S)
88 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
PD1 Is the rationale underpinning how the assessment elements fit together clear to
lecturers and students?
PD2 Is information in module/programme handbooks clear and consistent throughout about
how the different elements of assessment fit together?
PD3 How effective is the pattern of assessment within and across modules (timing; variety;
fitness for purpose; organisation of formative and summative)? Who is overseeing this?
PD4 How are students feeding into the development of modules/programmes to support
their understanding of how elements of assessment fit together?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
AL 2 Clarify how assessment elements fit together
continued
LT1 Clarify expectations regarding the hours of study required; the amount of preparation
required for each session.
LT2 Be explicit and precise about the hours of support available for feedback and make
sure this is consistent in handbooks and all other sources.
LT3 Be clear about what constitutes feedback and where and when this feedback will
take place.
LT4 Be clear about what you want the students to do with the feedback and set specific
tasks related to this (e.g., developing an action plan; reflecting on the feedback about
what is understood and what is not; how they are going to advance their work ...)
LT5 In giving written feedback ensure consistency in the timing of feedback across the
feedback team within a modules all students receive the feedback at approximately
the same time.
LT6 Use individual and group feedback judiciously – when is group feedback
most appropriate?
LT7 Tackle the emotional dimension of feedback directly with students. (e.g., enable time
between the receiving of feedback and asking students to act on feedback).
89 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AL 3 Clarify student entitlement
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Clarify the role(s) of the student in the feedback process and formalise this
(e.g., contract regarding expectations as part of the feedback process).
S2 Get students to produce a summary of what they understand from the feedback
they have received.
S3 Support students to establish peer feedback mentoring roles.
S4 Encourage students to audit where their own strengths and areas for development
lie and where they can best support peers.
S5 Ask students to take responsibility for auditing in-session feedback to feed into
future delivery working with the lecturer.
Student Focused (S)
90 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AL 3 Clarify student entitlement continued
PD1 How are lecturer and student roles and expectations in assessment made clear to all?
PD2 What does student engagement in assessment look like?
PD3 What baseline of expectations regarding assessment practice has been agreed
with teams?
PD4 How have you established where consistency is essential and in what areas?
PD5 What is being done to develop a shared understanding of assessment
feedback approaches?
PD6 How are students being supported to give and act on feedback as part of their role?
PD7 Are hours of required study by students and hours of lecturer support made explicit?
PD8 How are students being supported to recognise and make best use of the
support offered?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
91 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Clarify what constitutes good within the discipline and/or dimensions of it.
LT2 Model what constitutes a deep approach within your discipline.
LT3 Be clear about who are the leading researchers/sources within your discipline
that students should be consulting.
LT4 Less is more – highlight key concepts and focus attention on these in your teaching.
LT5 Identify threshold concepts – those that are likely to present difficulties to students
and provide resources on these.
LT6 Provide links to where further information can be sought on difficult concepts.
LT7 Do an academic needs analysis with students to identify gaps in knowledge; use this
information to pair students to support one another and/or to set up mixed groups
for peer support.
LT8 Ensure a programme level approach to the covering of core concepts to agree
where replication is warranted and to avoid unnecessary duplication.
LT9 Consider progression of ideas at programme level and how modules are working
together to support student learning, and specifically how the flow of ideas/concepts/
knowledge, and skills from one module feed into another.
LT10 Consider how resources are best shared across modules.
AL 4 Clarify the requirements of the discipline
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Be clear about what information students can source and cover for themselves,
and provide links to useful resources/sites.
S2 Provide self-assessment tools so that students can test their understanding of
key ideas.
S3 Get students to write mini tests for each other to use for whole groups;
peer groups etc.
S4 Get students to produce key summaries of problematic concepts in an accessible
language for their peers.
S5 Encourage students to produce and offer resources for other cohorts.
Student Focused (S)
92 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
PD1 Is What constitutes a ‘deep approach’ within the discipline? Is your signature
pedagogy articulated clearly?
PD2 How are you inducting students to become members of your academic discipline?
PD3 What networks beyond the disciplines should colleagues and students be tapping
into to support understanding within the disciplines?
PD4 How is the course content linking to the latest research within and beyond the
Faculty and University?
PD5 How are we promoting innovation within the disciplines, and as part of
interdisciplinary research?
PD6 How are students contributing to the knowledge base of the discipline?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
AL 4 Clarify the requirements of the discipline continued
93 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Explain the principles underpinning how you give feedback and why your approach
is good.
LT2 Agree the most appropriate form(s) for feedback for specific tasks.
LT3 Ensure there is time for feedback in each taught session and identify it as feedback.
LT4 Ensure feedback is specific and focused on how to improve.
LT5 Ensure feedback contains reference to what the student has done well prior
to elaborating on what needs improvement (address ‘is anything I did okay?’).
LT6 Ensure feedback relates directly to the assessment criteria but also gestures to
beyond the module.
LT7 Ensure feedback focuses on the most important areas to address and not the minutiae.
LT8 Ensure feedback is realistic in expectations (student has sufficient knowledge to be
able to use feedback effectively).
LT9 Provide links to where further information can be found to support development
of ideas.
LT10 Give detailed feedback on key sections of text so that students can learn to
address this throughout their work without you doing the whole thing for them.
LT11 Do not give feedback on full drafts and use comment boxes judiciously.
LT12 If a student has failed an assignment summarise succinctly what the key things
are that they must address in order to achieve a pass.
AF 1 Provide accessible feedback
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Get students to ask three focused feedback questions when submitting formative
work and address these specifically.
S2 Ask students to commit to what they want feedback on with Masters and PhD work.
S3 Get students to do something with the feedback to check their understanding of it,
and their ability to use it within and beyond a module.
S4 Get students to diagnose where their problem lies (e.g., lack of knowledge;
lack of understanding of feedback; effort; lack of awareness of resources;
misunderstanding of requirements etc.).
Student Focused (S)
Assessment Feedback
94 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AF 1 Provide accessible feedback continued
PD1 Do you have agreed principles of effective feedback underpinning all programmes?
PD2 How are you ensuring consistency in approaches to the giving of feedback?
PD3 Is your strategy for implementing University strategy at the Faculty level clear to all?
PD4 How are you evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of feedback mechanisms?
PD5 Is time built into workload models for training to ensure shared understandings of what
the base line of quality is for giving feedback and for agreeing what constitutes good?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
95 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Ensure that there is sufficient time for formative feedback to feed into summative.
LT2 Ensure formative tasks lead directly into summative and that students can see the link.
LT3 Be selective with assessment tasks.
LT4 Aim to reduce the emphasis on summative assessment; distribute tasks across
a module.
LT5 Use formative assessment but make tasks compulsory to ensure engagement.
LT6 Use pre- and post-session tasks to ensure students make the most of the
opportunities presented.
AF 2 Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Get students to do 1–3 minute videos on key points covered in a lecture/seminar.
S2 Use a series of assignment tasks of different types that can be brought together.
Allow students to select which ones will comprise their final submission and also
ask them to justify their reasons for the inclusion of the specific final submission.
S3 Integrate self and peer engagement opportunities into the module/programme so
that students learn to self-assess as they progress through the module. Aim to
include an aspect of self-assessment in each taught session.
S4 Use online self-checking tests that students can use to test their knowledge.
S4 Use technology to support learning (e.g., lecture capture; audio on powerpoints)
so students can go back and check understanding.
S5 Get students to do one or two page outlines of what they intend to cover early on
to ensure they are on the right lines.
S6 Get students to map how they can best support each other as part of peer engagement
agendas within and beyond the taught programme.
Student Focused (S)
PD1 Do you have a clear policy on the nature and timing of formative feedback that
students can expect to receive?
PD2 How are you ensuring early assessment of students’ needs through the design
of assessment?
PD3 What is the balance between formative and summative assessment?
PD4 What marking can students do for themselves and how can technology support this?
PD5 How are you ensuring that deadline dates enable students to use the whole content
of the module (should allow students to use information covered in the last session)?
PD6 How are you managing deadline dates across the whole programme so as to not
have negative knock on effects (e.g., can use formative assessment to spread load;
can use same dates for final submissions if given interim formative feedback)?
PD7 How can you make summative feedback formative in supporting students to
move forward in their next module(s)?
96 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AF 2 Provide early opportunities
for students to act on feedback continued
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
97 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Make expectations regarding student participation clear from the outset.
LT2 Justify if and why collaborative learning is important in relation to learning
outcomes/preparation for professions etc.
LT3 In setting up peer groups ensure opportunities for students to work with both the
same and different groups; supportlone working and collaborative activity.
LT4 Be clear about the remit of groups (contribution to teaching sessions; peer feedback;
summative assessment; study group; roles within groups).
LT5 Ensure that group activities (wiki; blog; etc) are purposeful and relevant to learning
outcomes and beyond.
LT6 Be clear about exactly what type of feedback you want students to give to each other.
LT7 Provide students with training in how to give and use feedback.
LT8 Ensure assessment encourages cooperation rather than competition (e.g., individual
students’ marks and group activity comprise the collective score for all in the group to
ensure each student supports others in the group or a nominated person in the group).
LT9 Use pre-tasks to ensure students have prepared in order to be ready to have
meaningful discussions with peers.
LT10 Build collaborative requirements into formative assessment (e.g., each student
needs to give feedback to three peers).
LT11 If using peer assessment: be very specific about what criteria is being assessed
and keep this very narrow; ensure multiple markers; ensure training in the allocation
of marks; and that the mark allocated by peers is a small component of the student’s
overall mark.
AF 3 Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Encourage student groups to set up their own informal meetings/ways of working.
S2 Encourage student groups to manage session feedback to feed into following lectures.
S3 Ask students to prepare resources and questions for each other.
S4 Get students to use materials pre-lecture to develop reciprocal questioning on
key themes.
S5 Ask students to generate assessment criteria for group projects.
Student Focused (S)
98 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AF 3 Prepare students for meaningful
dialogue/peer engagement continued
PD1 How are you defining peer engagement (formative peer support vs summative
peer judgements)?
PD2 How are you mobilising students to effectively contribute to the design and delivery
of programmes as genuine partners?
PD3 How are you ensuring students are prepared for dialogue (e.g., design of curriculum;
pre-tasks)?
PD4 How are you ensuring that peer engagement activities are authentic and relevant?
PD5 What are the most effective peer engagement activities within disciplines?
PD6 How is technology supporting interaction and dialogue?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
99 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Ensure students have full access to resources and course information so that they
can self-regulate their own learning.
LT2 Provide a range of resources so that students can check their own understanding.
LT3 Use ipsative approaches to get students to gauge where they currently are, and to
help them to develop strategies to enhance their performance, and to measure
self-development rather than development in relation to others.
LT4 Unpack key concepts like critical reflection through modelling and the provision
of a range of tools to assist with this process.
AF 4 Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Support students to identify useful networks of support (e.g., individuals; resources;
memberships of organisations etc.) that can support their own learning journeys.
S2 Support learners to self-regulate their own learning through an understanding of how
they learn, what their current strengths and limitations are, and what strategies would
be most useful to support their development.
S3 Support learners to see connections across modules to support their learning.
S4 Ask students to specify specific areas they would like feedback on.
S5 Get students to reflect on their responses to feedback. Train students in how to seek
out and act on feedback.
S6 Create opportunities for students to assess their peer’s work.
S7 As part of summative assessment, ask students to reflect on their giving of feedback
to others; and their own seeking and acting on feedback abilities.
S8 Get students to grade their own mark and to defend the grades allocated.
S9 Ask students to reflect on how they can apply learning acquired beyond the module
of study.
Student Focused (S)
100 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AF 4 Promote development of students’
self-evaluation skills continued
PD1 How are students being supported to self-regulate their own learning and to
help themselves?
PD2 How are programmes supporting students’ development of self-assessment skills?
PD3 How are programmes helping students to understand what critical reflection is,
and how to achieve this?
PD4 How can technology support students to develop their self-assessment skills?
PD5 In getting students up to speed with the requirements of assessment feedback
and as part of self-regulatory development – how is this being addressed as part
of induction into higher education?
PD6 How are you engaging students in assessing their own work?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
101 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Make the marking and moderation processes explicit to students and staff to
ensure confidence in the process.
LT2 Ensure ‘guest lecturers’ are aware of the nature of the specific assessment demands
on the students.
LT3 Keep marking teams small where possible to make it easier to ensure consistency.
LT4 Ensure programme meetings have a training element to allow time to consider
marking and moderation and review best practice.
LT5 Ensure assessment timelines enable students to demonstrate lessons learnt
from formative assessment and to allow students to use material covered in the
whole module.
LT6 Ensure that you clarify with students how marks have been awarded at the individual
task level and how marks are combined at the module/programme levels.
AD 1 Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures: QA literacy
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Involve students directly in quality assurance and enrichment processes.
S2 Consult and work with students in the development of University QA assessment
and feedback documentation.
S3 Ensure documentation is written in an accessible style for all stakeholders.
Student Focused (S)
Assessment Design
102 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AD 1 Ensure robust and transparent processes
and procedures: QA literacy continued
PD1 What procedures and processes are in place to ensure that colleagues have a
good and current understanding of quality assurance and how this relates to
the development of assessment practice?
PD2 Do you have an easily accessible summary on key assessment regulations within
Faculty and University that is available to all colleagues and students with clear
and active links to relevant and updated information sets?
PD3 Is there agreement on how, when, and where key information on processes and
procedures is disseminated to students (e.g., one overarching virtual learning location;
one key person or individual module leads; programme handbook)?
PD4 How do Faculty Curriculum and Quality Teams support innovative developments
in assessment practice; is colleagues’ expertise being used fully?
PD5 How are you ensuring additional support for lecturers new to a module?
PD6 How are you ensuring that assessment policies, regulations, and processes
are explicit, transparent, and accessible to all stakeholders?
PD7 How are you ensuring student performance is equitably judged?
PD8 How are you evaluating the effectiveness of marking and moderation
processes/procedures?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
103 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Ensure the nature of assessment is appropriate to meaningfully assess key
learning outcomes (constructive alignment).
LT2 Ensure the nature of assessment enables students to be engaged in the production
of meaningful products (e.g., engaging in research; developing resources for the
community; addressing key concerns within the wider world; have direct applications
to professional practice; community input involved in assessment of products).
LT3 Share principles underpinning the assessment design with students so that they
can understand the rationale informing the nature of assessment.
LT4 Ensure assessment tasks require students to engage deeply with the content.
LT5 Produce a one page plan for all teams to show how modules fit within a programme.
AD 2 Promote Meaningful and Focused Assessment
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Work with students to develop aspects of assessment (timing of formative; selection of
products for assessment, engaging with each other and the wider community etc.).
S2 Encourage students to demonstrate how can they apply their learning both within
and beyond the module (e.g., working in the community; real world issues;
new designs; research).
S3 Manage choice in assessment by negotiating with students exactly where the choices
are and the limits of such choices (e.g., being clear on what students can lead on).
S4 Involve students in developing and mapping learning outcomes within modules,
and across the programme.
S5 Work with students to demonstrate the linkages and progression from one module
to the next so they are able to gain a holistic sense of how the programme fits together,
and so they can understand the assessment requirements at each level.
S6 Work with students to ensure ‘buy in’ to the assessment (creative engagement).
Student Focused (S)
PD1 How are you engaging students in meaningful assessment?
PD2 How are you streamlining assessment to ensure that you do not over-assess
(e.g., focus on programme level assessment – key considerations include: ensuring
coherence of modules; reducing the number of modules; rationalising learning
outcomes; rethinking the types and patterns of assessment across the programme
as a whole to ensure an integrated and developmental experience for the learner;
rethinking the balance of formative and summative assessment)?
PD3 How are you encouraging collaborative design (e.g., involving colleagues beyond
the module (programme team; QA team; Library Services etc.)?
PD4 How are you ensuring mechanisms for the development of programmes are
appropriate to enable assessment practice to be responsive to needs?
PD5 How are you providing opportunities for teams to consider assessment holistically
across modules to ensure progression; managed choice; rationalisation of
learning outcomes?
PD6 How are you ensuring that all lecturers have a clear understanding of how their
module(s) fit within the overall programme structure? Do you have a one page
outline summarising this?
104 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
AD 2 Promote Meaningful and Focused Assessment
continued
105 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 Ensure assessment is appropriate and manageable in relation to student level.
LT2 Support student transitions by providing an in-depth session or series of sessions
that explore the students’ previous experiences of assessment and feedback and
initial concerns that can be targeted in subsequent teaching sessions.
LT3 Ensure provision of all resources prior to students starting the module/programme
(e.g., handbooks; virtual learning environment; assessment guidelines,
and submission deadlines).
LT4 Ensure resources are clearly organised to promote access (provide a routemap/
explanation of how resources are organised) and that students receive training in
how to access and use resources.
LT5 Introduce early assessment opportunities to enable appropriate support to be
put in place.
LT6 Ensure learning environments are adaptive rather than adapted and enable flexibility
(opportunities for learner
to proceed at appropriate pace; alternative pathways; opportunities to specialise
and/or generalise etc.).
LT7 Ensure sufficient variety in the nature and forms of assessment matched to the learning
outcome requirementsto enable all students to fully demonstrate their understanding.
LT8 Ensure choices in assessment and support learners to make informed choices (e.g.,
opportunities for individual and group working; self-selection of focus for assessment
with guidance; choice over formative deadlines; modes of feedback; nature of groups
and ways of working within and beyond sessions; ensure sufficient time to enable
choices to be realised over a programme of study).
AD 3 Ensure access and equal opportunities
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
106 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
AD 3 Ensure access and equal opportunities continued
PD1 How are you ensuring an adaptive design (one that enables all students to access
the curriculum)?
PD2 What is the agreed baseline expectation regarding resource provision including
online provision?
PD3 How are all students’ needs being addressed as an integral part of design?
PD4 Is assessment design inclusive? How are you monitoring and evaluating inclusive
assessment practice within and across modules and programmes?
PD5 Using a critical pedagogical stance- who is advantaged and disadvantaged by
your assessment?
PD6 How is formative assessment supporting students to successfully manage their
own learning?
Programme/Director Questions (PD)
S1 Encourage students to take responsibility to address their specific learning needs as to
what they can do and what we can reasonably do in partnership to support each other.
S2 Ensure that assessment design including feedback is accessible to all students.
S3 Undertake early assessment to ascertain student needs and to engage students
in undertaking their own audits of their needs.
S4 Provide students with managed choices as to how they navigate their
learning environments and encourage students to take responsibility for their
assessment choices.
S5 Support students’ development of networks of support so to ensure their integration
into communities of practice to support their work at the University.
S6 Ensure students are aware of support mechanisms available to them across
the University.
Student Focused (S)
107 EAT ©Evans, 2016–2020 – Equity, Transparency, Agency
LT1 In developing sustainable assessment practice the key is in supporting students to
manage the learning environment for themselves; evaluate how effectively
your assessment design is enabling this.
LT2 Elicit short, sharp feedback from students on your teaching within taught sessions
(e.g., through use of clickers; post-its; what went well; what could be better questions).
LT3 Demonstrate how student feedback is being taken on board (where appropriate)
within teaching sessions.
LT4 Provide opportunities for frequent low stakes assessment tasks to support student
engagement and to enable you to measure progress and/or stumbling blocks.
LT5 Set pre-tasks where students need to prepare focused questions for discussion in
the taught session; enable student groups to take turns in producing model answers.
LT6 Demonstrate to students how mid-semester feedback is being used to inform learning
and teaching and gain feedback from the students about the enhancements you
have made.
LT7 Clarify with students where it is not appropriate to make requested changes and why.
AD 4 Ensure ongoing evaluation to support
development of sustainable assessment and
feedback practice
Lecturer/Teacher Focused (LT)
S1 Get students to write a 5 minute essay and share with peers for feedback and
further discussion.
S2 Use the three minute elevator pitch idea (time it takes to get into and out of lift!)
to get students to summarise key ideas and to gain feedback from peers.
S3 Collate student snapshots of feedback during and at end of programme to feed
into developments.
S4 Get students to write guidance for students on key lessons that they learnt that
would be useful to have known at the start.