Alternative assessment and assessment for learning

The Learning and Teaching Hub sharepoint pages (available for University of Brighton staff) has a new section offering resources and advice on choosing and using alternative assessment tasks. We are also running some Talking about Teaching workshops on this topic in December – scheduled to help colleagues to consider any module assessment changes in time to be approved for the next academic year.

What do we mean by ‘alternative’? It’s been described as ‘an elastic term which stretches from doing the same thing in a different format to describing radically different ways of approaching assessment’[1]

In the first sense, it generally refers to a variation to an existing module assessment task – for instance, an oral presentation in place of an essay. About twenty years ago this was mainly used to meet new legislative requirements to provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ to accommodate students with particular disabilities. Because any such variation must enable the student to demonstrate an equal level of achievement, staff have increasingly been encouraged to plan alternative options in advance rather than devising ad hoc arrangements each time. Doing so also allows us to offer a choice for all students, giving them opportunities to develop new skills, while building staff familiarity and consistency in setting and assessing different tasks against the same criteria.  This helps to ensure that whatever formats are used, they provide equal challenge and assess the same learning outcomes, even if the mode of presentation may differ.

The term is also used, more loosely, to describe any ‘non-traditional’ assignment, usually considered to be anything other than an essay or exam. However, disciplines vary in what is currently seen as standard, and therefore what may seem alternative, radical or even controversial.  These assignments can include forms of writing that diverge from standard academic essays but also posters and other image-rich formats, which rarely fit neatly into existing guidelines on word length, as well as video, audio or web-based productions.

What is more important is the reason for adopting new approaches. We want to encourage assessment for learning by creating assignments that are themselves part of the learning process and which also discourage academic misconduct because they are less vulnerable to use of AI, essay mills or plagiarism. We may wish to devise tasks that are more ‘authentic’ in some way, usually to reflect practice in professional or other non-academic contexts, and to enable students to plan and present their work to a specific audience (real or imaginary).

Introducing new formats that may be unfamiliar to both students and staff should be done in a phased way, giving opportunities for small scale, low-risk experimentation at Levels 4 and 5 with plenty of formative feedback and support.  Module teams need to decide the appropriate balance between the different elements, and design assessment briefs and very clear marking criteria to ensure that student effort and grades are focused on content rather than technical skill unless the latter is part of the programme learning outcomes.

Whatever the particular mix of tasks, all assessment designs should also conform to the principle that total summative assessment output for a 20-credit module should normally be equivalent to approximately 35 hours student effort to come from independent study hours for the module.

The Learning and Teaching Hub sharepoint page for staff provides brief guidance around each assignment type to help module teams with the planning process. We are continuing to add new formats as well as inviting case studies and examples of assessment briefs and marking rubrics from different subject areas across the university. University of Brighton staff are invited to share experiences of introducing new assignment types and the challenges and benefits they have found.

[1] G. Stobart ‘Alternative Assessment’ International Encyclopedia of Education (Fourth Edition) 2023, Pages 96-102 available online at  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.09018-7