Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revitalising assessment design: what is holding new lecturers back?

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on a survey study exploring new lecturers’ views on assessment design (using a questionnaire called the Assessment Design Inventory) with 586 newly qualified or still qualifying lecturers from UK universities. A factor analysis established two factors labelled ‘desirable practice’ and ‘constraints’. Participants felt that their university teaching programmes had changed their views on assessment design and that assessment practices could be improved. Over 50 % agreed that there were practical restrictions on assessment design. Findings revealed a perception that there is little incentive to innovate in assessment and that students may not welcome such innovation in any case. Further statistical analysis specified the ‘external’ variables of institution and discipline to be important in shaping desirable practice and perception of constraints. ‘Individual’ variables of gender, length of teaching experience and qualification status showed a statistically significant effect. These analyses demonstrate some key influences on new lecturers’ views of assessment design and suggest reasons why they do not always feel able to put what they learn about assessment into practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher—Variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åkerlind, G. S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. R. (2010). The basis of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, M. (2006). Assessment and student transformation: Linking character and intellect. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973a). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973b). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Ridgway, J., Dori, J., & Wiesemes, R (2005) A learning integrated assessment system. In R. Wiesemes, & G. Nickmans (Eds.), EARLI (European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction) series of position papers. Resource document. Available at https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/smart.centre/Publications//EARLIPositionpaper1assessment.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2012.

  • Black, P. (2006). Assessment for learning: where is it now? Where is it going? In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning through the curriculum (pp. 9–20). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, R., & Preece, D. (2001). Changing higher education. International Journal of Management Education, 3, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education. Learning for the longer term. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M. (1995). Disciplines with an affinity for the improvement of undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, G. (2007). Student evaluation and the quality of legal education. Journal of Commonwealth Law & Legal Education, 5(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buccheri, G., Gürber, N. A., & Brühwiler, C. (2011). The impact of gender on interest in science topics and the choice of scientific and technical vocations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetriou, H., Wilson, E., & Winterbottom, M. (2009). The role of emotion in teaching: Are there differences between male and female newly qualified teachers’ approaches to teaching? Educational Studies, 35(4), 449–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Clement, M. (2007). Faculty development in research-intensive universities: The role of academics’ conceptions on the relationship between research and teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, L., & Johnston, B. (2002). Assessment in universities: A critical review of research. York: Higher Education Academy. Resource document. Available at http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/59244/1/59244.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2012.

  • Fanghanel, J. (2004). Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 575–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports student learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, A. R., Chick, N. L., & Haynie, A. (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (1998). An assessment of past and current approaches to quality in higher education. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (2002). The end of quality? Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. (2005). A history and critique of quality evaluation in the UK. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ijiomah, C. O. (2011). Humanistic epistemology. Filosofia Theoretica, 1(1), 62–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, P. T. (2002). Being a teacher in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2001). Departmental leadership in higher education: New directions for communities of practice. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kok, S.-K., Douglas, A., McLelland, B., & Bryde, D. (2010). The move towards managerialism: Perceptions of staff in ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Student Survey. (NSS). (2005–2010). Resource document. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/nationalstudentsurvey/nationalstudentsurveydata/. Accessed 3 December 2012.

  • Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, L., Aiyegbayo, O., Harrington, K., Elander, J., & Reddy, P. (2010). New lecturers’ beliefs about learning, teaching and assessment in higher education: The role of the PGCLTHE programme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 345–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, L., Norton, B., & Shannon, L. (2011). The assessment design inventory: A tool for research & staff development. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations. (pp. 199–214). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

  • Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50(4), 537–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. (2008). Comparing research and teaching in university promotion criteria. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quality Assurance Agency. (QAA). (2011). Understanding assessment: its role in safeguarding academic standards and quality in higher education a guide for early career staff. Resource document. Available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/UnderstandingAssessment.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2012.

  • Quality Assurance Agency. (QAA). (2012). Outcomes from institutional audit: 2009–2011. Assessment. Third Series. Resource document. Available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Outcomes-assessment.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2012.

  • Rust, C. (2007). Towards a scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2012). Assessment for learning in higher education. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Barker, S. (2003). Epistemological beliefs across domains using Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 352–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, L., Norton, L., & Norton, B. (2009). University lecturers’ assessment beliefs: A theoretical model. In Presentation at the 13th biennial conference of the European association for learning and instruction (EARLI), fostering communities of learners, Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 25–29, 2009.

  • Shay, S. (2008a). Beyond social constructivist perspectives on assessment: The centring of knowledge. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 595–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shay, S. (2008b). Assessment at the boundaries: Service learning as case study. British Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 525–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (2011). Beyond evaluative studies: perceptions of teaching qualifications from probationary lecturers in the UK. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(1), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). The development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Liccardi, I. (2006). Harnessing insight into disciplinary differences to refine e-learning design. In Paper presented at the frontiers in education (FIE) 2006 conference, San Diego, USA, 28–31 October. Resource document. Available at http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12576/2/Harnessing_Insight_into_Disciplinary_Differences_to.ppt Accessed 3 December 2012.

  • Yonghong, X. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty and turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zukov, K. (2012). Teaching strategies and gender in higher education instrumental studios. International Journal of Music Education, 30(1), 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research for this study was initially funded by the Write Now CETL http://www.writenow.ac.uk/.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Liverpool Hope University, Hope Park, Liverpool, L16 9JD, UK

    Lin Norton, Bill Norton & Lee Shannon

Authors
  1. Lin Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bill Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lee Shannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Norton.

Additional information

“Lee Shannon” formerly at Liverpool Hope University (i.e. during the research for this paper).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Norton, L., Norton, B. & Shannon, L. Revitalising assessment design: what is holding new lecturers back?. High Educ 66, 233–251 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9601-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9601-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation