Struggling and juggling: a comparison of student assessment loads across research and teaching-intensive universities

Pandemic pedagogy in Life Sciences

“…We also found that the number and types of assessment decreased by only 9.6% and 12% respectively. In this type of analysis, it is also important to consider the ongoing debate in the literature around assessment load and quality vs quantity (Tomas and Jessop 2018). We used summative assessment for 161 (16 types) pieces of coursework across 240 credits (2 years) of higher education pre COVID-19 and 151 (14 types) during COVID-19.…”

“…It should be noted that some of these assessments are very small, such as Mastering Biology quizzes (Urry et al 2020), which are used as ongoing learning checks in year 1 modules. Tomas and Jessop (2018) examine assessment loads across teaching and research-intensive Universities. According to their categorisation, we use a high variety of assessment methods.…”

“…In addition, the quantity versus quality assessment conundrum is a continuing debate in the literature (Harland et al 2015;Galvez-Bravo 2016;Tomas and Jessop 2018;O'Neill 2019) and the enforced rapid transition to online alternative assessment during COVID-19 provides an opportunity to assess the impact of streamlining assessment on student outcomes and experience.…”

Evaluative judgement – a practitioner's case in chemistry research projects

“…The challenges to assessment practice are well documented. Heavy summative assessment load, lack of or poor alignment to learning outcomes and transparency of criteria, and the low engagement of students in assessment and feedback are well rehearsed in the literature (Evans, 2013;Winstone and Nash, 2016;Jessop and Tomas, 2017;Tomas and Jessop, 2019). Contemporary literature abounds with proposed theoretical frameworks providing a direction.…”

Identifying and resolving key institutional challenges in feedback and assessment: a case study for implementing change

“…For example, modular design can over-emphasise the student experience of the module at the expense of the programme which is the true heart of the student experience. It may also adversely influence academics' understanding of assessment across programmes, with such significant consequences as over-assessment and risk of surface learning (Jessop & Tomas, 2017;Tomas & Jessop, 2018;Wu & Jessop, 2018). There is a convincing argument for enhancing assessment practice by working systematically at programme level as the picture of students' journey through their modules becomes much clearer.…”