1. Sue McPherson: Project Lead Katharine Cox: Head of English
Changing Steps, Step Changes: the Department of Humanities Assessment and Feedback Project
Sue McPherson: Project Lead
Katharine Cox: Head of English

2. Where we were – Remit for change
Summative assessments, placing, type, word counts and diet unmapped
Formative assessment and feedforwards?
Assessment criteria and rubrics: mixed picture
Audit of current assessment and feedback practice by course / subject area, focusing in particular on assessment type, load, weighting; assessment mapping across courses by level
Learn from current assessment and feedback literature, and best practice in sector
Work with students to review existing departmental and sector models.
Working with Course Leaders and Heads of Area, develop models of assessment and feedback practice in the context of the AJP
Consult and work with Course teams to review developing and developed models.

3. Students: Assessment Diet
‘There’s been a really nice variety. Been able to learn different skills, all valuable – just needs to be clear of link to pathways through Course a bit more’
But:
‘No presentation at level 5 so did level 4 presentation help?’
‘Once in level 5 there are new things like blogs so not always sure how level 4 has helped here.’
Assessment types as part of Course not always clear:

4. Students: Formative
Drop in attendance linked to summative assessment. Could do with tutorial weeks or no teaching week before assessments due in. Affects Attendance’ Workloads and word counts were an issue for students. ‘Just too much at times but we have to do it then don’t attend.’ Also linked to content ‘overload’ : ‘Content on some modules too much with all the work we have to do.’ ‘Too much reading when we have assignments due in.’ But currency/value of Course linked to graded assessment.: ‘Worried that if not graded then I would not want to look at work again because once I have a grade that is it done and I move on’ When formative discussed and transacted as feed forwards currency, students had different view: ‘ Oh yes, We do this for screenwriting and it is brilliant. We are used to this and so any more chance for this and less words or tasks would be brilliant for attendance and stress.’ ‘If some modules included more formative assessments then the reduced stress/pressure might make some students feel more comfortable/confident with how they are doing on their Course’ ‘Need to come really early when we start uni.’

5. Students: Assessment Criteria/Rubrics
Used in some areas of Dept. and welcomed by students as ‘fair’ (though with some caveats that they do not always understand the rubric).
Where absent: 100% of students wanted consistent rubric/assessment criteria:
‘ Might help stop us always trying to weigh up what tutor wants’
‘Too many different ways of telling us what is good and bad’
‘Sometimes language used in feedback unclear or changes across modules. Each tutor has their own ‘style. Like that tutors have styles but some baseline needed.’
‘Easy to think marking prejudiced.’
‘Better link need between what we are taught and how that is marked.’

6. Implementation Case Study: English
Full Assessment Map per course: assessment types aligned by Course teams
Reduction in word counts and equivalencies
Fed into curriculum review: formative, summative, assessment diet, content reduction, more learning for assessment/assessment literacy embedded.
Early formative diagnostic , level 4 (Faculty): delivered via AAs or Core module team: assessment literacy, self and tutor evaluation.
Development or creation of consistent assessment criteria (collaboration with students)
Case Study: English
Implementation

7. English implementation: Rubric development
Recent move to online and inline feedback –an opportunity to scaffold the assessment developments
Builds on narrative of consistency in LTA across Dept
Consultation gave a context, involved staff, and directly engaged with the student voice
Initial project gave us a shared vocabulary for assessment processes
Research undertaken by leads gave an evidence base
Change drawn together across Humanities but located in English
Upskilled staff/provided a refresher for thinking about LTA

8. What we did.... round 1
Assessed staff’s ability/time to engage with project and agreed parameters
We moved quickly but ensured all colleagues participated through:
tailored discussions, one on ones, and LTA discussion through group meetings
Initial meetings lacked focus – what could we achieve?
Assured staff that change would happen but involved them in setting the tempo and identifying support
Working groups established around assessment types linked to module teams

9. Round 2...
Developed more structured thinking about LTA and rubrics in particular through development of initial essay rubric – series of proposals drawn from other universities
Used our external examiners to provide examples and meet with staff to discuss
Lead by staff expertise we returned to modular Learning Outcomes and clarified and rationalised assessment types
Initial essay rubric acted as a key for other discussions
Engagement with rubrics led to further rationalisation of rubrics – we identified consistency across our working (and also areas of different)