How university teachers design assessments: a cross-disciplinary study

Abstract

There are dissonances between educators’ aspirations for assessment design and actual assessment implementation in higher education. Understanding how assessment is designed ‘on the ground’ can assist in resolving this tension. Thirty-three Australian university educators from a mix of disciplines and institutions were interviewed. A thematic analysis of the transcripts indicated that assessment design begins as a response to an impetus for change. The design process itself was shaped by environmental influences, which are the circumstances surrounding the assessment design, and professional influences, which are those factors that the educators themselves bring to the process. A range of activities or tasks were undertaken, including those which were essential to all assessment design, those more selective activities which educators chose to optimise the assessment process in particular ways and meta-design processes which educators used to dynamically respond to environmental influences. The qualitative description indicates the complex social nature of interwoven personal and environmental influences on assessment design and the value of an explicit and strategic ways of thinking within the constraints and affordances of a local environment. This suggests that focussing on relational forms of professional development that develops strategic approaches to assessment may be beneficial. The role of disciplinary approaches may be significant and remains an area for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2011). Understanding the design context for Australian university teachers: Implications for the future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.553622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carless, D. (2015). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), 963–976. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9816-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Creswell, J. W., & Roskens, R. W. (1981). The Biglan studies of differences among academic areas. Review of Higher Education, 4(3), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dedoose, V. (2012). Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fletcher, R., Meyer, L., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012). Faculty and students conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 64(1), 119–133. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, 1(1), 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  9. James, D. (2014). Investigating the curriculum through assessment practice in higher education: the value of a ‘learning cultures’ approach. Higher Education, 67(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9652-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kennedy, T. J. T., & Lingard, L. A. (2006). Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Medical Education, 40(2), 101–108. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02378.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Macdonald, R., & Joughin, G. (2009). Changing assessment in higher education: A model in support of institution-wide improvement. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 1–21). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Meyer, L. H., Davidson, S., McKenzie, L., Rees, M., Anderson, H., Fletcher, R., et al. (2010). An investigation of tertiary assessment policy and practice: Alignment and contradictions. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(3), 331–350. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00459.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Norton, L., Norton, B., & Shannon, L. (2013). Revitalising assessment design: What is holding new lecturers back? Higher Education, 66(2), 233–251. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9601-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Norton, L., Richardson, T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50(4), 537–571. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6363-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Offerdahl, E. G., & Tomanek, D. (2011). Changes in instructors’ assessment thinking related to experimentation with new strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 781–795. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.488794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Postareff, L., Virtanen, V., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2012). Academics’ conceptions of assessment and their assessment practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(3–4), 84–92. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Price, M., Carroll, J., O’Donovan, B., & Rust, C. (2011). If I was going there I wouldn’t start from here: A critical commentary on current assessment practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 479–492. doi:10.1080/02602930903512883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Quesada-Serra, V., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S. (2014). What are we missing? Spanish lecturers’ perceptions of their assessment practices. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.930353.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. doi:10.1002/nur.20362.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Watkins, D., Dahlin, B., & Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of the backwash effect of assessment: A phenomenographic study of the views of Hong Kong and Swedish lecturers. Instructional Science, 33(4), 283–309. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-3002-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Office for Learning and Teaching under Grant ID12-2254. We do not have any financial interests or benefits from any direct application of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Bearman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S. et al. How university teachers design assessments: a cross-disciplinary study. High Educ 74, 49–64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0027-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Academic context
  • Academic experiences
  • Academic practice
  • Teaching skills