1. Assessing students in large groups
University of Edinburgh
26 November 2015
Sally Brown
Emerita Professor, Leeds Metropolitan University
Visiting Professor: University of Plymouth, University of South Wales & Liverpool John Moores University.

2. Rationale
Assessment and feedback are crucial for engaging students fully in their own learning;
The NSS is regarded in UK universities as of high importance, while assessment and feedback normally score worse than other areas;
Academics are keen to find ways not only of giving feedback efficiently and effectively, but also to ensure students do something positive with the feedback made available to them.
Too often it is the mark alone that seems to engage their attention.

3. This workshop is designed to enable participants to:
Discuss some of the challenges of assessing large groups of students;
Review the importance of good assessment to promote student learning;
Consider a range of means by which to assess efficiently and effectively.
Explore how best to improve the student experience of assessment and feedback, without exhaustion.

4. Why is assessment such a big issue?
Good feedback and assessment practices are essential to student learning;
Student satisfaction surveys frequently highlight significant dissatisfaction around these issues;
In tough times, staff often find the pressure of achieving fast and formative feedback a heavy chore, especially when cohorts are large.

5. Two major UK and one Australian initiatives inform my work:
The HEA ‘A marked improvement’;
The QAA code of practice B6;
Boud et al (2010) ‘Assessment 2020’.

6. From ‘A marked improvement’ (HEA, 2012)
Assessment of student learning is a fundamental function of higher education. It is the means by which we assure and express academic standards and has a vital impact on student behaviour, staff time, university reputations, league tables and, most of all, students’ future lives. The National Student Survey, despite its limitations, has made more visible what researchers in the field have known for many years: assessment in our universities is far from perfect. (p.7)

7. Assessment is lagging
Assessment practices in most universities have not kept pace with the vast changes in the context, aims and structure of higher education. They can no longer do justice to the outcomes we expect from a university education in relation to wide-ranging knowledge, skills and employability. (p.7)

8. Students are confused
In a massified higher education sector where tutor- student ratios have gradually been eroded, students can remain confused about what is expected of them in assessment. Efforts to make this transparent through learning outcomes, assessment criteria and written feedback have proved no substitute for tutor-student interaction and newer groups of students are particularly likely to need this contact. (p.7)

9. It’s time to change assessment
The rising demands of fee-paying students [in England] , the increasing financial pressures on institutions and the need to maintain the UK’s international reputation for high academic standards are going to place extra strain on already vulnerable assessment practices. It is time for a serious reappraisal, and the purpose of this publication is to support that reappraisal of assessment policy and practice in higher education through evidence-informed change. (p.7)

10. Modularisation has caused trouble
Modularisation has created a significant growth in summative assessment, with its negative backwash effect on student learning and its excessive appetite for resources to deliver the concomitant increase in marking, internal and external moderation, administration and quality assurance. (p.7)

11. Assessment for learning
The debate on standards needs to focus on how high standards of learning can be achieved through assessment. This requires a greater emphasis on assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning. When it comes to the assessment of learning, we need to move beyond systems focused on marks and grades towards the valid assessment of the achievement of intended programme outcomes.

12. The necessity of dialogue
Assessment standards are socially constructed so there must be a greater emphasis on assessment and feedback processes that actively engage both staff and students in dialogue about standards. It is when learners share an understanding of academic and professional standards in an atmosphere of mutual trust that learning works best. Active engagement with assessment standards needs to be an integral and seamless part of course design and the learning process in order to allow students to develop their own, internalised conceptions of standards, and to monitor and supervise their own learning.

13. Improving assessment improves learning
Assessment is largely dependent upon professional judgement, and confidence in such judgement requires the establishment of appropriate forums for the development and sharing of standards within and between disciplinary and professional communities. Assessment shapes what students study, when they study, how much work they do and the approach they take to their learning. Consequently, assessment design is influential in determining the quality and amount of learning achieved by students, and if we wish to improve student learning, improving assessment should be our starting point. (p.9)

14. We need more formative, less summative
The change that has the greatest potential to improve student learning is a shift in the balance of summative and formative assessment. Summative assessment has important purposes in selection, certification and institutional accountability, but its dominance has distorted the potential of assessment to promote learning (assessment for learning). (p.9)

15. Peer assessment has benefits
While the use of peer assessment may cause alarm in some external examiners and those focusing on academic standards, the ability to assess self and others is an essential graduate attribute. Studies consistently report positive outcomes for well-designed peer marking, including claims from students that it makes them think more, become more critical, learn more and gain in confidence. (p.9)

16. Assessment is ‘resource heavy’
Assessment is resource heavy in the modern higher education institution. Transforming assessment policy and practice can bring cost savings in administration and quality assurance. These savings are generated by reducing summative assessment, improving failure rates and retention, and reducing instances of malpractice, non- submissions, complaints and appeals. It is important to note that most of the quality assurance and other procedures discussed in this section make demands on staff time without any attendant benefit for student learning. (p.11)

17. High stakes assessment causes problems
However, the high stakes nature of summative assessment can lead to expensive and time-consuming applications for extenuating circumstances, student complaints, appeals and litigation. The latter also runs the risk of generating adverse publicity. The pressure of high stakes assessment could also encourage plagiarism and poor academic practice among some learners with its high staff costs and adverse outcomes for students. (p.11)

18. UK Quality Code for Higher Education
Assessment is a complex topic since it involves two distinct aspects. First, it forms an essential element of the learning process. Students learn both from assessment activities and from their interaction with staff about their performance in those activities. This interaction has two elements: a focus on their learning and the extent to which that has been demonstrated in the assessment, and a focus on furthering their learning, which may itself subsequently be assessed. The latter element is often referred to as 'feedforward'.

19. QAA, continued...
Second, it is the means by which academic staff form judgements as to what extent students have achieved the intended learning outcomes of a programme, or of an element of a programme. These judgements form the basis for the grading of student performance through the allocation of marks, grades and (where applicable) classification, and (provided the learning outcomes have been met) for the award of the credit or qualification to which the programme leads. (QAA, 2013, p.3).

20. Extracts from the QAA Code of Practice B6
Indicator 5 Assessment and feedback practices are informed by reflection, consideration of professional practice, and subject-specific and educational scholarship. Indicator 6 Staff and students engage in dialogue to promote a shared understanding of the basis on which academic judgements are made.

21. Designing assessment Indicator 8
The volume, timing and nature of assessment enable students to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved the intended learning outcomes.
Indicator 9
Feedback on assessment is timely, constructive and developmental.
Indicator 10
Through inclusive design wherever possible, and through individual reasonable adjustments wherever required, assessment tasks provide every student with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their achievement.

22. Marking and moderation
Indicator 13
Processes for marking assessments and for moderating marks are clearly articulated and consistently operated by those involved in the assessment process.
Indicator 14
Higher education providers operate processes for preventing, identifying, investigating and responding to unacceptable academic practice.

23. Competent to assess?
Higher education providers assure themselves that everyone involved in the assessment of student work, including prior learning, and associated assessment processes is competent to undertake their roles and responsibilities’ (QAA, 2013, p.11)

24. Appropriate development or training?
Assessment processes are implemented effectively when all staff involved have the necessary knowledge and skills, have received the appropriate development or training to fulfil their specific role, and are clear about their remit and responsibilities. Higher education providers identify what is appropriate for each role and how competence will be demonstrated, recognising that assessment involves different roles, each of which may be carried out by a variety of staff. (QAA, 2013, p.11).

25. Boud et al 2010: ‘Assessment 2020’
Assessment has most effect when...:
It is used to engage students in learning that is productive.
Feedback is used to actively improve student learning.
Students and teachers become responsible partners in learning and assessment.
Students are inducted into the assessment practices and cultures of higher education.
Assessment for learning is placed at the centre of subject and program design.
Assessment for learning is a focus for staff and institutional development.
Assessment provides inclusive and trustworthy representation of student achievement.

26. Learning from Boud et al: Better assessment can save money
...where programmes plan for more formative assessment and feedback, there is a better chance that a greater proportion of students pass modules at their first attempt, thereby saving staff time in relation to demand for extra support, re-sits, appeals and complaints. Improved pass rates and reduced attrition bring obvious financial benefits for institutions and positive outcomes for students. Overall, a radical review of assessment can bring cost savings and better use of teaching resources. (p.11)

27. ‘Impact on learning’
Assessment is a central feature of teaching and the curriculum. It powerfully frames how students learn and what students achieve. It is one of the most significant influences on students’ experience of higher education and all that they gain from it. The reason for an explicit focus on improving assessment practice is the huge impact it has on the quality of learning. (Boud and Associates, 2010, p.1)

28. A rethink is needed
Universities face substantial change in a rapidly evolving global context. The challenges of meeting new expectations about academic standards in the next decade and beyond mean that assessment will need to be rethought and renewed. (Boud et al, 2010 p.1). In the next section we will consider how to streamline assessment to make it more effective and efficient.

29. Why would we wish to streamline assessment?
Huge pressure on resources in higher education;
Larger numbers of students in cohorts;
Ever-increasing demands on staff time;
Staff indicate they spend a disproportionate time on assessment drudgery;
The means exist nowadays to undertake some aspects of assessment more effectively and efficiently.

30. Formative and summative assessment
Formative assessment is primarily concerned with feedback aimed at prompting improvement, is often continuous and usually involves words.
Summative assessment is concerned with making evaluative judgments, is often end point and involves numbers.

31. Looking at the alternatives
Each of the following methods aims to make giving feedback to students more effective and efficient.
Any single method used exclusively is unlikely to be acceptable to students;
Ring the changes so that your means of assessment provides a variety of different kinds of feedback.

32. Efficient assessment: we need to:
Stop marking, start assessing!
Explore ways to maximise student ‘time on task’ (Gibbs) and minimise staff drudgery;
Remember that feedback is crucial to student learning but the most time-consuming aspect of assessment: we need to explore ways of giving feedback effectively and efficiently.

33. Giving feedback more effectively & efficiently, we can:
Feedback orally to groups of students;
Write an assignment report;
Use model answers;
Use assignment return sheets;
Use statement banks;
Involve students in their own assessment;
Use technologies for delivering and managing assessment.

34. Feeding back orally to groups of students: why?
Face-to-face feedback uses tone of voice, emphasis, body language;
Students learn from feedback to each others’ work;
Students can ask questions;
Makes feedback a shared experience.

35. Feeding back orally to groups of students: how?
Staff mark assignments with minimal in-text comment and provide grades/marks as normal;
At the start of a lecture or seminar, the tutor provides an overview of class performance and orally remediates errors ,clarifies misunderstandings, and praises good practice;
Students have a chance to ask and answer questions;
An audio file can be made available on the VLE.

36. Written assignment reports: why?
Provides feedback to a group as a whole;
Allows students to know how they are doing by comparison with the rest of the course;
Offers a chance to illustrate good practice;
Minimal comments can be put on scripts;
Generic reports can be delivered quickly electronically before moderation.

37. Assignment reports: how?
Staff mark assignments with minimal in-text comment and provide grades/marks as normal;
Notes are made of similar points from several students’ work;
A report is compiled which identifies examples of good practice, areas where a number of students made similar errors and additional reading suggestions.

38. Using ‘expanded’ model answers: why?
They give students a good idea of what can be expected of them;
It is sometimes easier to show students than tell them what we are after;
They can be time efficient;
They show how solutions have been reached;
They demonstrate good practice;
The commentary can indicate why an answer is good.

39. Using model answers: how?
Staff preparing an assignment can draft a model answer;
Student work (or extracts from several student’s answers) can be anonymised and (with permission) used as a model;
Text can be placed on page with explanatory comments appended (‘exploded text’);
However, caution should be exercised in order to lead students to think only one approach is acceptable.

40. Assignment return sheets: why?
Proformas save assessors writing the same thing repeatedly;
Helps to keep assessors’ comments on track;
Shows how criteria match up to performance and how marks are derived;
Helps students to see what is valued;
Provides a useful written record.

41. Assignment return sheets: how?
Criteria presented in assignment brief can be utilised in a proforma;
Variations in weighting can be clearly identified;
A Likert scale or boxes can be used to speed tutor’s responses;
Space can be provided for individual comments.

42. Sample assignment return proforma
Criterion no
Criterion
(0-5 marks)
Mark
Tutor comments and suggestions for further work
Student response 1
Demonstrates ability to present information clearly logically, accurately and fluently 3
This work is written reasonably fluently but there are some typos that would not slip in if spell checker used properly. Also note you don’t use the definite and indefinite articles (‘a’ and ‘the’ appropriately: please refer to the language guidance 17.3 on the VLE
This is something I’ve had problems with over the years but am still working on it 2
Demonstrates ability to choose and use appropriate software 5
Made excellent choices and used it well to suit the context of the problem being addressed
Thank you
Demonstrates ability to use a range of reference materials and cite them appropriately
Cited only one reference and did so inaccurately
Please refer to the ifs referencing guide on the VLE and ensure that you provide all the information required
I've checked it out and see where I was going wrong

43. Statement banks: why?
Harnesses a resource of comments you already use;
Avoids writing same comments repeatedly;
Allows you to give individual comments additionally to the students who really need them;
Can be automated with use of technology.

44. Statement banks: how?
Tutor identifies a range of regularly used comments written on students’ work;
These are collated and numbered;
Tutor marks work and writes numbers on text of assignment where specific comments apply, or provides a written (or ed) detailed commentary which pulls together the appropriate items into continuous prose;
Moodle and other platforms can do much of the drudgery in terms of collating marks, returning work etc. Assignment handler can return comments and only release marks when students have commented.

45. Computer-assisted assessment: why?
Enables feedback to be given regularly and incrementally;
Saves tutor time for large cohorts and repeated classes;
Can allow instant (or rapid) on screen feedback to e.g. MCQ options;
Saves drudgery, (but not a quick fix);
Is really worth while for large cohorts and where content doesn’t alter fast.

46. Computer-assisted assignments: how?
Designing them should not be a cottage industry!
Training and support both in designing questions and applying the relevant technology are essential;
Testing and piloting of CAA items is also imperative;
We can make use of existing test packages (e.g. from publishers), colleagues with expertise and advice from software companies (e.g. Moodle, Turnitin, QuestionMark).

47. Good feedback practice (after Nicol et al):
1. Helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards);
2. Facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
3. Delivers high quality information to students about their learning;
4. Encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
5. Encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
6. Provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
7. Provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape the teaching.

48. Students benefit if we can make feedback timely
Aim to get feedback on work back to students very quickly, while they still care and while there is till time for them to do something with it.
The longer students have to wait to get work back, especially if they have moved into another semester by the time they receive their returned scripts, the less likely it is that they will do something constructive with lecturer’s hard-written comments.

49. Making assessment work well
Intra-tutor and Inter-tutor reliability need to be assured;
Practices and processes need to be transparently fair to all students;
Cheat and plagiarisers need to be deterred/punished;
Assessment needs to be manageable for both staff and students;
Assignments should assess what has been taught/learned not what it is easy to assess.

50. Encouraging students to take assessment more seriously
All assessment needs to be seen to be fair, consistent, reliable, valid and manageable;
Many assessment systems fail to clarify for students the purposes of different kinds of assessment activity;
Low-stakes early formative assessment helps students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, understand the rules of the game.

51. Can we provide opportunities for multiple assessment?
Consider allowing resubmissions of work as part of a planned programme;
Students often feel they could do better once they have seen the formative feedback and would like the chance to have another go;
Particularly at the early stages of a programme, we can consider offering them the chance to use formative feedback productively;
Feedback often involves a change of orientation, not just the remediation of errors.

52. Using formative assessment to promote independence and learning
Investigate how learning can be advanced in small steps using a ‘scaffolding’ approach;
Provide lots of support in the early stages when students don’t understand the ‘rules of the game’ and may lack confidence;
This can then be progressively removed as students become more confident in their own abilities.

53. Play fair with students by avoiding using ‘final language’ (Boud)
Avoid destructive criticism of the person rather than the work being assessed.
Try not to use language that is judgmental to the point of leaving students nowhere to go.
Words like “appalling”, “disastrous” and “incompetent” give students no room to manoeuvre.
However, words like “incomparable” and “unimprovable” don’t help outstanding students to develop ipsatively either.

54. Play fair by giving feedback to students with diverse abilities
Students at the top end of the ability range sometimes feel short changed by minimal feedback;
Students with many weaknesses easily become dispirited if there is too much negative feedback;
Consider giving an assessment sandwich. Start with something positive, go into the detailed critique and find something nice to say at the end (to motivate them to keep reading!);
Explore ways to incentivise reading of feedback;
Consider which medium to use for students with disabilities (e.g. don’t use bad handwriting for those with visual impairments or dyslexia!).

55. Good feedback:
Is dialogic, rather than mono-directional, giving students chances to respond to comments from their markers and seek clarification where necessary.
Helps clarify what good work looks like, so students are really clear about goals, criteria and expected standards, and provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance.
after Brown, S. (2015), Assessment, learning and teaching in higher education: global perspectives, Palgrave

56. Good feedback:
Actively facilitates students reviewing their own work and reflecting on it, so that they become good judges of the quality of their own work.
Doesn’t just correct errors and indicate problems, potentially leaving students discouraged and demotivated, but also highlights good work and encourages them to believe they can improve and succeed.

57. Sadler, the most cited author on formative assessment argues:
“Students need to be exposed to, and gain experience in making judgements about, a variety of works of different quality... They need planned rather than random exposure to exemplars, and experience in making judgements about quality. They need to create verbalised rationales and accounts of how various works could have been done better. Finally, they need to engage in evaluative conversations with teachers and other students.”

58. Sadler continues…
Together, these provide the means by which students can develop a concept of quality that is similar in essence to that which the teacher possesses, and in particular to understand what makes for high quality. Although providing these experiences for students may appear to add more layers to the task of teaching, it is possible to organise this approach to peer assessment so that it becomes a powerful strategy for higher education teaching. Sadler, (2010)

59. Good feedback:
Delivers high-quality information to students about their achievements to date and how they can improve their future work. Where there are errors, students should be able to see what needs to be done to remediate them, and where they are undershooting in terms of achievement, they should be able to perceive how to make their work even better.

60. Good feedback:
Offers ‘feed-forward’ aiming to ‘increase the value of feedback to the students by focusing comments not only on the past and present … but also on the future – what the student might aim to do, or do differently in the next assignment or assessment if they are to continue to do well or to do better’ (Hounsell, 2008, p. 5).
Ensures that the mark isn’t the only thing that students take note of when work is returned, but that they are encouraged to read and use the advice given in feedback and apply it to future assignments.

61. Five things students really hate about feedback
Poorly written comments that are nigh on impossible to decode, especially when impenetrable acronyms or abbreviations are used, or where handwriting is in an unfamiliar alphabet and is illegible.
Cursory and derogatory remarks that leave them feeling demoralised ‘Weak argument’, ‘Shoddy work’, ‘Hopeless’, ‘Under-developed’, and so on.
Value judgements on them as people rather than on the work in hand.

62. Five things students really hate about feedback
Vague comments which give few hints on how to improve or remediate errors: ‘OK as far as it goes’, ‘Needs greater depth of argument’, ‘Inappropriate methodology used’, ‘Not written at the right level’.
Feedback that arrives so late that there are no opportunities to put into practice any guidance suggested in time for the submission of the next assignment.

63. Assessment literacy: students do better if they can:
Make sense of key terms such as criteria, weightings, and level;
Encounter a variety of assessment methods (e.g. presentations, portfolios, posters, assessed web participation, practicals, vivas etc) and get practice in using them;
Be strategic in their behaviours, putting more work into aspects of an assignment with high weightings, interrogating criteria to find out what is really required and so on;
Gain clarity on how the assessment regulations work in their HEI, including issues concerning submission, resubmission, pass marks, condonement etc.

64. Use CAA for rather than of learning
We can employ computer-assisted formative assessment with responses to student work automatically generated by ;
Students seem to really like having the chance to find out how they are doing, and attempt tests several times in an environment where no one else is watching how they do;
We can monitor what is going on across a cohort, so we can concentrate our energies either on students who are repeatedly doing badly or those who are not engaging at all in the activity; Note that Computer-supported assessment can include use of audio feedback via digital sound files, video commentaries and other means of using course Virtual Learning Environments.

65. Making assessment work well
Intra-tutor and Inter-tutor reliability need to be assured;
Practices and processes need to be transparently fair to all students;
Cheat and plagiarisers need to be deterred/punished;
Assessment needs to be manageable for both staff and students;
Assignments should assess what has been taught/learned not what it is easy to assess.

66. Encouraging students to use the feedback we provide for them
Delivery of feedback should not be left to chance, so its best to avoid asking students to pick up marked hard copy assignments from departmental offices;
Electronic submission of assignments has benefits and disadvantages but on balance the former outweigh the latter;
Perhaps require students to guestimate expected marks having read your feedback early in their programmes;
‘Assignment handler’ can deliver feedback electronically and only release marks once students have responded;
Audio files of audio feedback can be highly successful in enabling students to capture ‘live’ oral feedback, and can replace written feedback (e.g. JISC project Sounds good).

67. Whether these are short medium or long term?
Planning to strategically enhance your assessment and feedback. Please identify some goals and specify:
Whether these are short medium or long term?
What your timescale/milestones might be?
Who will take a lead on making them happen?
How you might involve students in making these changes?
What resources and support you need to make them happen?
What might get in the way of you achieving this, and what you can do to mitigate these problems?
How you will know when you have achieved them successfully?

68. Conclusions
Assessment impacts highly on student learning so we need to rethink how we can best do this, taking account of new contexts, new technologies and new opportunities;
Efficient and effective feedback is just about the most important thing we do to enhance student learning, progression and success.
To make a marked improvement, we need to focus on giving feedback that is directed towards fostering productive dialogues and engagement;
This is time consuming but incredibly worthwhile, so we need to be strategic about how we do use feedback;
We can make assessment really count by encouraging students to value it and make the most of the support and guidance on offer.

69. These and other slides will be available on my website at http://sally-brown.net

70. Useful references: 1
Assessment Reform Group (1999) Assessment for Learning : Beyond the black box, Cambridge UK, University of Cambridge School of Education.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bloxham, S. and Boyd, P. (2007) Developing effective assessment in higher education: a practical guide, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Brown, S. Rust, C. & Gibbs, G. (1994) Strategies for Diversifying Assessment, Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing learning through self-assessment, London: Routledge.
Boud, D. and Associates (2010) Assessment 2020: seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Brown, S. and Glasner, A. (eds.) (1999) Assessment Matters in Higher Education, Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Brown, S. and Knight, P. (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page.

71. Useful references: 2
Brown, S. and Race, P. (2012) Using effective assessment to promote learning in Hunt, L. and Chambers, D. (2012) University Teaching in Focus, Victoria, Australia, Acer Press. P74-91
Brown, S. (2015) Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education: global perspectives, London: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Carless, D., Joughin, G., Ngar-Fun Liu et al (2006) How Assessment supports learning: Learning orientated assessment in action Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (2005) Teaching International students: improving learning for all. London: Routledge SEDA series.
Crosling, G., Thomas, L. and Heagney, M. (2008) Improving student retention in Higher Education, London and New York: Routledge
Crooks, T. (1988) Assessing student performance, HERDSA Green Guide No 8 HERDSA (reprinted 1994).
Falchikov, N. (2004) Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education, London: Routledge.

72. Useful references: 3
Gibbs, G. (1999) Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn, in Brown S. & Glasner, A. (eds.), Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches, Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press.
Higher Education Academy (2012) A marked improvement; transforming assessment in higher education, York: HEA.
Hounsell, D. (2008). The trouble with feedback: New challenges, emerging strategies, Interchange, Spring, Accessed at
Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (2003) Assessment, learning and employability Maidenhead, UK: SRHE/Open University Press.
Mentkowski, M. and associates (2000) p.82 Learning that lasts: integrating learning development and performance in college and beyond, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McDowell, L. and Brown, S. (1998) Assessing students: cheating and plagiarism, Newcastle: Red Guide 10/11 University of Northumbria.

73. Useful references: 4
Nicol, D. J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education Vol 31(2),
NUS (2010) NUS Charter on Assessment and Feedback, toview.pdf).
PASS project Bradford Accessed November 2013
Pickford, R. and Brown, S. (2006) Assessing skills and practice, London: Routledge.
QAA (2013) UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality, accessed at (June 2014)
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer & Group Assessment, in LTSN Generic Centre Assessment Series No 9, LTSN York.
Race P. (2015) The lecturer’s toolkit (4th edition), London: Routledge.
Ryan, J. (2000) A Guide to Teaching International Students, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

74. Useful references: 5
Rust, C., Price, M. and O’Donovan, B. (2003) Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 28 (2), Stefani, L. and Carroll, J. (2001) A Briefing on Plagiarism cord&section=generic&id=10 Sadler, D. R. (2010a). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), Sadler, D. R. (2010b) Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 727‑743. Sadler, D. R. (2010c). Assessment in higher education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (eds). International encyclopedia of education. Vol. 3, 249‑255. Oxford: Elsevier. Sadler, D. R. (2013b). Opening up feedback: Teaching learners to see. In Merry, S., Price, M., Carless, D., & Taras, M. (Eds.) Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing Yorke, M. (1999) Leaving Early: Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education, London: Routledge.

75. A marked improvement: HEA, 2012
This publication was developed through collaborative working and writing involving a group of experts in the field of higher education: Dr Simon Ball (JISC TechDis), Carolyn Bew (Higher Education Academy), Professor Sue Bloxham (University of Cumbria), Professor Sally Brown (Independent Consultant), Dr Paul Kleiman (Higher Education Academy), Dr Helen May (Higher Education Academy), Professor Liz McDowell (Northumbria University), Dr Erica Morris (Higher Education Academy), Professor Susan Orr (Sheffield Hallam University), Elaine Payne (Higher Education Academy), Professor Margaret Price (Oxford Brookes University), Professor Chris Rust (Oxford Brookes University), Professor Brenda Smith (Independent Consultant) and Judith Waterfield (Independent Consultant).

76. Boud et al, 2010
David Boud (University of Technology, Sydney), Royce Sadler (Griffith University), Gordon Joughin (University of Wollongong), Richard James (University of Melbourne), Mark Freeman (University of Sydney), Sally Kift (Queensland University of Technology), Filip Dochy (University of Leuven), Dai Hounsell (University of Edinburgh), Margaret Price (Oxford Brookes University), Tom Angelo (La Trobe University), Angela Brew (Macquarie University), Ian Cameron (University of Queensland), Denise Chalmers (University of Western Australia), Paul Hager (University of Technology, Sydney), Kerri-Lee Harris (University of Melbourne), Claire Hughes (University of Queensland), Peter Hutchings (Australian Learning and Teaching Council), Kerri-Lee Krause (Griffith University), Duncan Nulty (Griffith University), Ron Oliver (Edith Cowan University), Jon Yorke (Curtin University), Iouri Belski (RMIT University), Ben Bradley (Charles Sturt University), Simone Buzwell (Swinburne University of Technology), Stuart Campbell (University of Western Sydney), Philip Candy (University of Southern Queensland), Peter Cherry (Central Queensland University), Rick Cummings (Murdoch University), Anne Cummins (Australian Catholic University), Elizabeth Deane (Australian National University), Marcia Devlin (Deakin University), Christine Ewan (Australian Learning and Teaching Council), Paul Gadek (James Cook University), Susan Hamilton (University of Queensland), Margaret Hicks (University of South Australia), Marnie Hughes-Warrington (Monash University), Gail Huon (University of Newcastle), Margot Kearns (University of Notre Dame, Sydney), Don Maconachie (University of the Sunshine Coast), Vi McLean (Queensland University of Technology,) Raoul Mortley (Bond University), Kylie O’Brien (Victoria University), Gary O’Donovan (University of Tasmania), Beverley Oliver (Curtin University), Simon Pyke (University of Adelaide), Heather Smigiel (Flinders University), Janet Taylor (Southern Cross University), Keith Trigwell (University of Sydney), Neil Trivett (University of Ballarat), Graham Webb (University of New England).