By Sally Hickson, PFHEA, Senior Lecturer in Health Sciences Education Development, Academic Lead for Accreditation 

Can a group of colleagues mostly from outside the programme review its assessments and make recommendations to enhance them, quickly? This was the central question behind our Enhancing Assessment Review (EAR) initiative. What emerged was a process that was efficient, insightful, collaborative, and impactful. 

What is EAR? 

We, the EAR team, work through all the available information relating to the assessments in scope, including individual assessments and a programme-wide view. We analyse relevant data – which depend on the agreed scope – and consider constructive alignment, assessment size and weight, deadlines, skills development, and the vulnerability of assessments to the use of tools such as generative AI. We also review EDI considerations, assessment guidance, and marking criteria. We take a holistic view of assessments across students’ journey through a programme, and make recommendations to enhance assessments to the programme team. 

As an EAR team, we bring together our extensive knowledge and expertise in assessment and feedback, curriculum design, university and regulatory/professional requirements and university processes. Involving colleagues external to the programme brings fresh perspectives, constructive challenge, and a level of objectivity often difficult to achieve internally (and this externality proved to be one of the most valuable aspects of the process). We really do lift the lid on everything we can find whilst making sure we stay true to the agreed scope. We access Canvas pages to see things from students’ perspectives, and we produce spreadsheets and heatmaps and other data to gain a wide and in-depth view of the programme’s assessment processes.  It’s very interesting to uncover creative assessments, or outstanding examples of guidance that unit coordinators provide to students, and we make sure to celebrate these. 

Key outcomes so far

We’ve completed two EARs so far, both based in the School of Biological Sciences; a pilot in 2024 and a larger review across all assessments for lecture based usings in Years 2 and 3 of the UG programmes in 2024–25. Of the 65 units reviewed, changes were recommended for 61. 

Of those 61 units… 

• 42 (46 including pilot) changed their assessments in-line with the recommendations made by the EAR team 
• 16 units considered EAR recommendations but had reasons to delay or not adopt the recommendations 
• 3 unit teams did not respond so the assessments were not changed by default 

Across all units reviewed, the changes resulted in 101 fewer summative assessment points: Some assessments were removed entirely, some were consolidated, and some have become formative opportunities. Based on the unit enrolments for 2024/25, we estimate that the changes result in around 506 fewer marking-hours per academic year, and over 2 million fewer assessment-words for students, while still meeting unit and programme ILOs. 

As well as reducing assessment load, EAR so far has also: 

• Increased variety of assessment tasks  
• Better aligned assessments to ILOs  
• Increased use of GenAI in assessment by design 
• Provided students with some optionality over assessment type 
• Identified and shared creative and authentic assessments 
• Improved balance of summative with formative assessment  
• Reduced summative assessment bunching 

EAR has been overwhelmingly well received. It generated meaningful professional dialogue and a wide range of actionable recommendations. Crucially, it demonstrated that assessment design can be evaluated in terms of effectiveness, impact, scalability, and implementation within a short timeframe. Rather than adding burden, the EAR team supported programme teams by suggesting viable alternatives, engaging in constructive conversations, and helping shape a leaner, more coherent assessment strategy across the SBS UG portfolio. 

Looking ahead

The EAR team are currently involved in reviewing assessments in the undergraduate nursing and pharmacy programmes. These are uniquely scoped to address the particular programme’s needs to enhance their assessment portfolio and practice. So far, feedback through evaluations of the EAR project have been overwhelmingly positive. The success of the review suggests significant potential for scaling this model further. With careful adaptation, EAR could be applied across the University to support ongoing assessment enhancement.  

If your programme has been experiencing assessment fatigue or dissatisfaction, we’d love to hEAR (!) from you and be very happy to have a conversation with you about how an EAR might be able to help.